Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?
mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Tue Feb 2 20:54:10 UTC 2010
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:32:19PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > If a spin wants to use a modified kernel package, what's the procedure
> > for ensuring that it receives the same level of QA as the normal kernel?
> That's not something I think would be in the scope of a SIG, nor do I
> think something like that would make it past Spin review. This would
> also take the current SIG/Spin outside the scope of being part of the
> Fedora Project as it is no longer using Fedora packages, this (in my
> opinion at least) would be a situation where a fork would be needed.
But beyond that, it's a matter of degree rather than principle. If we
refuse to allow conflicting kernels to be included in the distribution,
we're preventing some people from producing the spins that they want to
work on. By only supporting a single kernel, we're implicitly stating
that the focus of Fedora is limited to the people catered for by that
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
More information about the devel