add a special Provides: to all login manager packages

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Feb 19 14:07:11 UTC 2009


On 19.02.2009 14:38, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 06:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Colin Walters wrote:
>>> I forgot to point out in an earlier message that there is precedent
>>> for setting up barriers for low-level software, namely the Fedora 3rd
>>> party kernel driver policy:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelDriverPolicy
>> I actually still don't see why we're banning separate kernel module packages
>> even if they're under a GPLv2-compatible license. Useful stuff like kqemu
>> with no license or patent issues is being forced into RPM Fusion purely
>> because of the combination of the above policy and the ban on
>> separately-packaged kernel modules. This also causes problems with getting
>> the modules out at the same time as the new kernel which would just not
>> happen if they were in Fedora and got pushed out with new kernels in
>> grouped updates. The #1 rationale for banning kernel modules entirely
>> was "FESCo was rejecting most requests anyway, so it won't change much",
>> but the option of changing that fact, or even getting rid of the FESCo
>> approval requirement entirely, never even got considered.
> I think they're banned b/c a kernel module package means we're not doing
> the proper job of getting the module in upstream.

And because maintaining kernel modules we want to ship(¹) as patch 
within the regular Fedora kernel SRPM is likely easier and better for 
everyone (²).

CU
knurd

(¹) there are a lot external GPLed modules we don't want to ship for 
various reasons

(²) that's the long story short and without all those boring details; 
and of course having modules upstream is the best for everyone




More information about the devel mailing list