thoughts on modules-extra subpackage...

[Andy Gospodarek]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:18:27PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:10:21PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > > > I think that fix is simple -- I don't think ssb should have been in
> > > > that list in the first place.
> > > 
> > > SSB was something we marked as 'why is this enabled at all??', so we
> > > went with the 'safe' route of moving it first.
> > > 
> > 
> > The ssb module is needed for b44 (wired) and b43 (wireless) drivers to
> > function properly.  That needs to get added back.
> 
> Erm, ok.  Except John said he turned it off in whatever he was working
> on, so... I guess? :)  I fixed it in git.
> 
> As an aside, this is also why I have a line in the TODO file to tie the
> list into Kconfig instead of a manually generated list.  That way we
> don't miss stuff like this.
> 

Sounds good.

> > > > So that brings me to the first big concern...  Should we have _any_
> > > > hardware enablement included in the modules-extra package?  If so,
> > > > what is the cut-off?  Do we really want to diminish our out-of-the-box
> > > > hardware support for whatever benefit modules-extra provides?
> > > > Is there SMOLT data or something similar to justify the list of
> > > > modules being moved?
> > > 
> > > Nope, no smolt data.
> > > 
> > 
> > That is a bit troubling.  I definitely want as much hardware support as
> > possible to be available in Fedora.  I am particularly focused on
> > networking, so hopefully we do not move any reasonable wires or wireless
> > drivers out (which is essentially what happened when ssb was moved out).
> 
> We pretty much left the network _hardware_ drivers alone.  The ssb thing
> was unintentional.
> 

Understood.  I never thought it was intentional.