Hello,
I have read up more on the kernel modules debate, as well as asked 
around some on private e-mail.  It's time now to bring the debate to the 
mailling list.

As far as I can tell, there are three ways to do kernel modules.  They 
fall into three catagories.
kmod - What Fedora and Redhat decided to do
kmdl - What Axel Thimm has developed and implemented
kernel-module - What we currently are doing, although I believe the idea 
was originally from livna

So far, nobody has brought up any other way of doing kernel modules.

I don't have time to put good web page links for these, so I'm just 
going to do the Pro's and Con's.

KMOD
Pro
  - RedHat and Fedora is doing it
Con
  - It only works with the current kernel.  Although this is only one 
Con, it is a huge minus.  It means you can't back out to an older kernel 
if something went wrong.
  - There are other con's, and others can list them, but the above con, 
in my opinion, drops it from our consideration.

KMDL
Pro
  - Very similar to what we already are using, just a different naming 
convention.
  - Already has a tested yum plugin
  - Would allow our users to use the atrpm's repository without any 
modifications.  (Although if we just put the plugin into our repo, they 
can do that without much changes.)
  - If we united with Axel on this, it might get Fedora and RedHat to 
change over to how they do things.
  - people looking at a package, such as openafs, would see the kernel 
module at the same time as the rest of the package.  (In other words, by 
listing openafs*, they would see it has a kernel module, while currently 
they have to have a suspision that it has a kernel module, and then look 
at kernel-module-openafs*)
Con
  - It's different than we currently have implemented.  This would 
require reworking some rpm's, and documentation.
  - The main developers haven't tested it as much as the kernel-module way.
  - it isn't as obvious that kdml means kernel module

KERNEL-MODULE
Pro
  - We're already doing it.  No change needed.
  - We've already tested it.  Although we know it's not perfect, we know 
where the problems are.
  - It's really obvious that kernel-module-* is a kernel module
Con
  - We do have some problems when doing the initial install of a package 
and it's kernel module.
  - It looks like we are one of the few holdouts for this convention.


Conclusion:
  Troys Opinion:  It's obvious we need to either stay with kernel-module 
or switch over to kdml.  I vote for going with kdml, and make that into 
the standard.  It think eventually Fedora and RedHat will see that this 
way is less work, easier to implement, and just plain works.  I am not 
so set on this idea that I cannot be persuaded to continue with 
kernel-module.

Hopefully this e-mail starts some good debate.  Please no flames. 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
If you already responded to me in private, feel free to repost your 
opinions here.  I haven't ignored them.

Troy