On 29/05/15 14:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:40 AM, David Sommerseth
<davids(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 28/05/15 17:45, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:26 AM, David Sommerseth <davids(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've started poking into packaging the mhvtl project for Fedora and
>>> EPEL. This package also contains a kernel module, which normally works
>>> fine - until you hit Secure Boot.
>>>
>>> So I was wondering how to handle this the best way. AFAIK, there are
>>> currently no plans to get the mhvtl.ko kernel module into the upstream
>>> kernel.
>>
>> Where can I read more information on this project, and why that might be?
>
> Duh! I'm so into this I forget to add better project info ...
>
> <
https://sites.google.com/site/linuxvtl2/>
Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my question. I found the
site by googling of course, but I was curious if you had pointers to
reasoning/discussion around why the kernel module won't be pushed
upstream.
I have asked the mhvtl developer about this, still awaiting an answer.
I would generally prefer seeing it upstream kernel, but until then I'd
like to have a solution in place as well.
>> It is worth noting that Fedora does not allow packages other
than the
>> kernel to ship kernel modules.
>
> Oh, I was not aware of that. But compiling a kernel module "on-the-fly"
> is acceptable for Fedora?
Kinda. Packages that do that exist. We know they exist. We assume
the people maintaining them are going to be polite and deal with
issues.
Fair enough!
--
kind regards,
David Sommerseth