Re: Proposal to add build of kernel-backports package to kernel.spec

[Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 16:01 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:55:41PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:

> The reason for naming putting it somewhere other than updates (packaged
> external modules) or extras (locally-built external modules) was
> to indicate that these modules were something other than the other
> categories.  That still seems reasonable to me.

I like that. If you're going to ship alternative much newer options,
don't put them in "updates" (intended for the local admin), and we have
generally used "extra" for packaged drivers. I favor the "backports"
directory. New directories are cheap, and searching them is just a
trivial config file entry...then users can always get a choice about
using a backport. In fact, they can be given a drop-in config file that
will change the load order on a per-module basis if they need to replace
the standard driver with the compat-wireless option.

Jon.


_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel