Attention kernel module project packagers!

[Rahul]

Leszek Matok wrote:
> Dnia 15-08-2006, wto o godzinie 09:27 -0400, Jesse Keating napisał(a):
>> (...) all kinds of weird hacks to how they are (...)
>> Arguing over which ugly ass hack to apply to be able to package kernel modules 
>> is a bikeshed argument.
> Isn't the "kmdls" system meant to be the cure to all of this? Is it even
> a hack? I don't even think the package names are truly ugly.
> 
> Fedora is meant to be a testbed of open source technology, right? If so,
> what's wrong with having separate kernel modules available for me to
> test and search for bugs? I don't want to patch and compile the kernel
> only to see if some module works for me. If it's an incomplete device
> driver, it still can work on my hardware or I can provide some feedback
> about the features not working. Fedora is packaging lots of broken
> software which people still want to use (and I'm writing this in
> Evolution!).

Nobody is stopping use from using separate kernel modules and we cant 
dictate what users or other repositories do. This discussion is merely 
about what Fedora Project should do and having multiple packaging 
standards is a bad idea to promote.

> 
> I agree that it's better to make kernel package maintainers to maintain
> all of patches and additional modules, but they don't have the manpower
> to do it and support it (not to mention the ones they can't put there,
> but other repo can).

If the kernel package maintainers dont have time to maintain them and 
someone else packages modules in Fedora Extras, the kernel maintainers 
wont be able to help fix any bugs with these modules loaded. So in 
essence, we are being self contradictory in this solution.

> 
> People are going to make kernel module rpms anyhow. Forcing them to use
> flawed design that's hard to use, maintain, keep in sync with kernel
> updates and impossible to boot older kernels is worse than pushing Xorg
> 7.1 for FC5 which we're not doing because... we recognize the need for
> people to use off-tree kernel modules :) The Board has spoken - using
> external kernel modules is a valid user choice and it's important to
> make it easier for the users. That's my understanding of The Board's
> decision.
> 
> So, kmdls are the next step.
> 

Sorry but the board decision on Xorg 7.1 was for that specific instance. 
We havent set any general policy on how updates are handled and Max 
Spevack specifically mentioned that we are not setting any precedent 
with this decision.

Morever the current kernel module packaging approved by FESCo does not 
prevent you from booting into older kernels.

Rahul