On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:51:01AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long
> > > time
> > > without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there
> > > is no rawhide version now and there was a long period witho
Till Maas wrote:
> IMHO having both in RPMFusion with a proper dependency is the easiest
> way to install it. Having some package with a missing kernel module
> dependency in Fedora would only make it more complicated for other
> repositories that provide the kernel module and can therefore provide
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:09:19 +0300,
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:25:00PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200,
> > > Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they
> > > need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Mo
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:25:00PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200,
> > Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they
> > need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would
> > probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he prob
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:59:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion.
There should not be any room for any "cripple ware" in Fedora nor should
Fedora be a stage for "closed s
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:59:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper criterion.
>
> There should not be any room for any "cripple ware" in Fedora nor should
> Fedora be a stage for "closed source loaders".
So it should apply to prett
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper
criterion.
There should not be any room for any "cripple ware" in Fedora nor
sho
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > Then our opions diverge: I think it should be a hard show stopper
> > criterion.
> >
> > There should not be any room for any "cripple ware" in Fedora nor
> > should Fedora be a stage
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 18:31:03 +0200,
> Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they
> need? Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would
> probably not try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even
> know what it's good for. However It makes things easier
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:31:03PM +0200, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> From the opposite POV:
> Why should we make peoples' lives harder getting the tools they need?
> Example: Somebody without the DAHDI Kernel Modules would probably not
> try to use the DAHDI Tools since he probably won't even kno
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/14/2009 06:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
modul
On 10/14/2009 06:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at leas
Original Message
Subject: Re: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
From: Ralf Corsepius
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Date: 14.10.2009 17:29
IMO: no.
Packages in Fedora should "just work" and therefore must not rely on
anything which
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> Hello All!
>>
>> Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
>> module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
>> don't allow stand-alon
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
>> module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
>> don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
>>
>> W
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
Whether or not this package can be allowed?
IMO: no.
Pac
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:04:56PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
> module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
> don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
>
> Whether or not this package c
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Original Message
> Subject: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
> From: Peter Lemenkov
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Date: 14.10.2009 15:04
>>
>> Imagine a
2009/10/14 Stephen Gallagher :
> This is an interesting question. Suppose someone wrote (for example) an
> GPLed configuration tool for a closed-source hardware driver. Would it
> be permissible to include an open-source tool in the distribution, even
> knowing it would only ever be usable with a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/2009 09:04 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
> module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
> don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
>
>
2009/10/14 Itamar Reis Peixoto :
> yes, I am already told this for you.
>
> for example I have user-mode-linux user space but I don't have
> user-mode-linux enabled in kernel.
I have strong opinion, that this is a bad practice. So I decided to ask others.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
-
yes, I am already told this for you.
for example I have user-mode-linux user space but I don't have
user-mode-linux enabled in kernel.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
> module is not
Original Message
Subject: Are packages w/o necessary kernel modules allowed?
From: Peter Lemenkov
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Date: 14.10.2009 15:04
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
Whether or not this package can be allowed?
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
fedora-devel-list
24 matches
Mail list logo