[Fedora-packaging] Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[Panu Matilainen]

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 16:53 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> 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.

+1 

Having both standards mix and match is by far the worst of both worlds
IMNSHO.

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

Another +1

Both choices have their weak and strong points. If it's impossible to
decide based on technical merits alone... flip a coin or something,
really. 

	- Panu -