[Fedora-packaging] Mail voting on kmdl adoption

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Sat Aug 12 07:01:15 UTC 2006



seth vidal schrieb:
> On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:43 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 12:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>>> d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
>>>    (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
>>>    ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
>> Rather than vote on these issues as Axel suggests (which we can
>> certainly do), I think that perhaps we should look at a different
>> approach:
>>
>> Just throwing it out here, but I don't really see consensus on this
>> issue. People either like kmod or kmdl, and I think there are definite
>> pros/cons to each approach. My instinct is that if we vote on Axel's
>> items, they will not pass. And I don't think it is because the kmdl
>> standard is broken or outright wrong, I think much of it is due to the
>> fact that so much pain and effort went into making the kmod standard
>> (which works for the majority of cases) that people are honestly
>> unwilling to start over.
>>
>> So, here's the heretical proposition: 
>>
>> How about we permit either kmod OR kmdl as an acceptable standard? E.g.
>> Document both, and let the packager choose?
>>
>> I see kernel module packaging as one of the last barriers to bringing in
>> contributions from open source, unencumbered 3rd party repo packages.
>> Given the near religious nature of this debate, maybe a little
>> flexibility (not infinite flexibility) is merited here for the greater
>> good?
> 
> umm - then we'll need both plugins and it will be near impossible to
> make sure they play nicely.

> moreover - if a package switches owners and one likes kmod while the
> previous one likes kmdl then we're kinda, umm, screwed.

And we need proper support for both standards in plague.

And having two standard is confusing for the users, too.

> the packaging committee should make a choice, go with and then it is
> done.
>
> that's the whole point of the committee.

+1

Cu
thl




More information about the packaging mailing list