I found no reference about packaging different kernel flavours. As I understand the documentation, there is one generic kernel in Fedora's main repos, and any other flavour should be managed in separate repos. Is this ok? Whether it's ok or not, I think it should be clarified somewhere.
I'm asking this because there's a review request submitting a specific kernel flavour (Intel's Clear optimisations) here, and we don't know who's the right person to ping about it. Could anyone take a look at this, please?
My understanding is that we don't allow alternative source trees for the kernel. This is the reason why it has taken so long for Fedora ARM to be useful, and why we don't have an official deliverable for Fedora RISC-V yet.
That was my understanding too. Is this clearly stated in any wiki page that I could have missed?
I thought this was documented somewhere on the kernel wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel) but I guess not. One kernel has been the policy for a very long time. If you're interested in changing this, I suggest working through the Fedora change process to review what needs to be done.
No, I'm not interested in changing the policy. I agree with it. I'm just interested in having a clear reference to resolve and close a review request like that. :)
This certainly isn't a packaging committee thing. I can see us adding a link somewhere if there's a policy to which we should link but I don't know where that would be.
I can also see the utility in a separate "what can/can't be packaged" document (which might or might not be part of the guidelines proper) so that we could completely concentrate on the "how to package" stuff.
Agree. However, No External Kernel Modules and No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries look very much like "what can't be packaged", and that's why I opened this issue here. So I suppose that many of that bits should be moved to an eventual "what can/can't be packaged" wiki page.
Who would be responsible of such a page? Where could I raise this issue to propose such a page?
Yes, and what I'm saying is that those sections shouldn't be there.
Legal issues would go to legal; policy issues like "can you package religious texts" and "can I package my own kernel" would go to FESCo. FPC could certainly maintain the page, whether that goes in the guidelines (and gets moved out of the wiki along with the guidelines when that happens) or whether FESCo maintains a policy page (or an entire policy hierarchy) is not really up to us.
If FPC doesn't end up doing it I will be happy to do it personally.
Closing this issue then and moving it to the FESCo repo. Thanks!
Metadata Update from @iucar: - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Well, OK, but a draft is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/WhatToPackage
I'll open a separate ticket for that.
Oh, great! Please, go ahead and take the lead on this. You know the protocol better than me. ;-)
Login to comment on this ticket.