On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:41:28AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Not that my opinion matters much, but I think this is an
> mind shift. The end result is the same as today, just extra files in
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`, right?
Actually, I was hoping some other kernel maintainers would chip in so
your opinion does matter. I really don't want to change this in Fedora
to only have it reverted in a future RHEL. Maybe Jarod or Rafael would
be kind enough to review as well...
Off the top of my head, if it works out for Fedora, I currently can't see a
reason RHEL would revert it. But that depends on what quirks falls out. :-)
And yes, your summary is correct.
> This is one of those ideas, I am curious to see how it plays out. It can
> turn into nothing or allow us to do more interesting things from a package
> maintaince or sysadmin perspective.
> The only problem is how does one go about implementing ideas like this,
> aside from creating their own distro?
> If all we are doing is adding new files to /lib/modules, then it is low
> risk, I would think. But I would probably keep this in rawhide somehow (if
> at all possible).
If we apply it, it would start in rawhide and work its way through the
normal Fedora release process. So at this point the earliest release it
would land in would be Fedora 23. The backwards compatibility Harald
noted was for ease of use in testing rawhide kernels on older userspace.
> Then again I like some of the ideas of the stateless model as it makes
> updating machines (servers big and small) easier. I almost think Docker
> but with distros instead of apps.
> Just my 2cents.