kernel modules in extras criteria
Dave Jones
davej at redhat.com
Thu Aug 3 19:27:00 UTC 2006
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:18:19PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Questions:
>
> - Should a kernel module where the upstream has no plans of merging
> with the upstream kernel be allowed in extras? (This means it could
> stay around in extras forever)
>
> - If upstream says they are going to try and merge their module, but
> never does (lack of time, technical issues, no real desire to, etc),
> should the module be removed after some time?
>
> - Should there be any other criteria? (renew approval every new
> release, only allow modules for 1 year and remove, etc)
- Who fixes the inevitable bugs that get reported ?
I'll state this publically now: If I get Fedora kernel bugs filed,
and they have modules loaded that aren't shipped as part of the
kernel rpm, I am _completely_ uninterested in dealing with those bugs
unless they can be shown to be present without them loaded.
This is regardless of whether they're 100% opensource or not, it comes
down to time. I don't have time to deal with all the bugs we have
*today*, and I for sure don't have time to go running around grabbing
the sources for out of tree modules.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
More information about the devel
mailing list