Hans de Goede wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'd like to just do a brief poll here just to see how many are yay or
> nay for kmods. And I'm not talking about their current implementation
> or the other various ways that the idea can be accomplished, but rather
> on the idea of having kernel modules as separate packages in general.
>
> If you're against the general idea and want to follow up with reasons
> why that's fine. I just want to avoid implementation discussions at the
> moment if possible.
>
I'm not sure where I stand, on one hand I would love to see something
like the UVC driver to be in a kmod until merged upstream, to add
support for recent webcams.
OTOH, maintaining kmods and especially keeping the repo depsolving 100%
with them may be a pain.
I think that atleast we need a rule that if it isn't heading upstream,
there need to be real good reasons to have it in Fedora, if it is
heading upstream I think providing a kmod for a while as a service might
be a good idea.
Does anyone know for example why the lirc kernel module
Modules. There are a TON of 'em.
has never gone upstream?
Christoph Bartelmus seemed to have very little interest in getting
things upstream, but *just* posted a "Help Wanted" email to the lirc
mailing list on the 16th. Excerpted from that:
----8<----
3. kernel module clean-up: the final goal should be a kernel
integration, but there a several fine-grain steps inbetween, like
correct usage of __init, __exit, remove all compile time dependancies,
enable support for more than one serial port at a time in lirc_serial,
remove 2.4 compatibility code, etc.
----8<----
--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson(a)redhat.com