[RFC] non-KVM graphics/IO drivers in our default install media

[Matthias Clasen]

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

> 
> Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior
> on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting
> it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already
> have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5)
> it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix
> that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc.
> 
> I consider myself to be fairly open to many things.  Carrying
> virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit
> them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not
> one of those things.  This is one of the few items where I simply say
> no.

Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ?

I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a
lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions
carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected
out-of-hand.