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