[CentOS-devel] RFC: kmods SIG Proposal

Wed May 19 16:05:59 UTC 2021
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:56 AM Peter Georg
<peter.georg at physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'd like to propose a SIG for CentOS Stream. Please see the proposal below.
>
> Note: In case anyone has a better suggestion for a name, please let me
> know. I'm really terrible at naming things. And sorry in advance for any
> spelling or grammar mistakes (I'm not a native english speaker).
>
> For everyone following the previously posted "RFC: Stream Kernel SIG
> Proposal": The goal of the "kmods" SIG proposed here has previously been
> proposed to be added to a potential "Stream Kernel SIG" as a fifth goal.
> However it seems to make sense to split the various different goals into
> seperate SIGs.
>
> Disclaimer: I used the Hyperscale SIG description
> (https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Hyperscale) as a template.
> I hope that's OK.
>

That's totally fine!

>
>
> Proposal:
> = kmods SIG =
>
> == Goals ==
> The kmods SIG will focus on providing kernel modules currently not
> available in CentOS Stream.
>
> == Status ==
> Proposed: RFC and looking for a sponsoring Governing Board member
>
> == What's in scope ==
> This SIG is a good place for any kernel module that is beneficial to
> CentOS Stream, but cannot be directly contributed to any of the involved
> upstream projects. These kernel modules may be divided in three categories:
>
> === Restore support for deprecated devices ===
> The CentOS Stream kernel includes several kernel modules for which the
> list of supported devices has been limited by Red Hat. This SIG aims to
> provide versions of these kernel modules with restored support for as
> many deprecated and removed devices as possible.
>
> A close collaboration with the kernel-plus developers is desired for
> these kernel modules.
>
> === In-kernel modules not enabled for CentOS Stream ===
> Many in-kernel modules are simply disabled for the CentOS Stream kernel.
> This may either be due to  drivers being deprecated and removed compared
> to older CentOS major releases or never being enabled in the first
> place. This SIG aims to provide these in-kernel drivers as external
> kernel modules to enable CentOS Stream running on a broader range of
> available hardware and provide other beneficial functionality.
>
> A close collaboration with the kernel-plus developers is desired for
> these kernel modules. In addition it is desired to work with upstream to
> get any valuable kernel modules directly into the CentOS Stream kernel.
>
> === Third-party external kernel modules ===
> This SIG also aims to provide third-party kernel modules for CentOS
> Stream not (yet) available in upstream kernel.
>
> == What's not in scope ==
> Anything that can be contributed directly to any of the involved
> upstream projects is not in scope. This includes, but is not limited to:
>
> * New user space packages: These should be submitted to Fedora/EPEL
> * Support for new architectures currently not supported by CentOS Stream
> * Third-party kernel modules with non compatible license
>

I don't think that it makes sense to ship the user-space packages in
EPEL if the kernel functionality isn't present in RHEL. This was
something that we went over in Hyperscale with btrfs-progs, and my
argument has basically been "people expect EPEL stuff to just work out
of the box on RHEL, and we can't offer that with btrfs-progs in EPEL",
so now Hyperscale maintains btrfs-progs in CBS. I suspect the same
tack will make sense for this too.

> == Roadmap ==
>   * Provide packages for in-kernel modules with restored support for
> deprecated devices
>   * Provide packages for in-kernel modules that have been supported in
> older CentOS major releases
>   * Provide packages for further beneficial kernel modules requested by
> the community
>
> == Resources ==
> TBD
>
> == Communication ==
> The SIG uses the
> [[https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel|centos-devel]]
> mailing list for coordination and communication.
>
> TBD: Add note about regular meetings once established.
>
> == Membership ==
> The current set of members is:
>
> ##begin-members
>   * ...
> ##end-members
>
> The SIG is co-chaired by ... and ....
>
> Everybody is welcome to join and contribute to the SIG. Membership can
> be requested by asking on the
> [[https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel|centos-devel]]
> mailing list. Any current member can raise objections and request a
> simple majority vote on membership applications. SIG members are
> expected to actively contribute or otherwise remain engaged with the
> project. Stale members may be removed by a simple majority vote after
> six months of inactivity.
>
> The SIG is co-chaired by two equal chairpersons elected by SIG members
> for one year. Each chairperson is elected individually using a plurality
> vote.

It might make sense to see if we can bring ELRepo into the fold. A
requirement for that would be the ability to build with RHEL in the
buildroot, though. Perhaps we can get an arrangement for CBS to have
RHEL buildroots like EPEL has?



-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!