On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:41AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > > Also from a support perspective, it becomes more complicated to support > > kernel installs when random user scripts can cause unknown behaviour. > > This has been the argument against DKMS for 5 years now. However, in > those 5 years, how many support calls has Red Hat taken where a > DKMS-ified driver turned out to be the problem? Where it wasn't > obvious what was happening? 'dkms status' is even part of sysreport, > and has been for at least 3 years. I was unaware of this. But in rhel we have been adding more support to make it more obvious that non-rhel drivers have been installed. Perhaps that will help support. Most reports I read though usually have the statement "does it work without the 3rd-party driver". > > I'd accept a change to new-kernel-package rpmposttrans() that invokes > the DKMS script directly, as opposed to looping through a plug-in > directory, if that makes people feel any better. I suspect it doesn't > though. I would be more in favor of that provided we shipped and controled the script. Something an 'rpm -v' could verify that the script wasn't maliciously changed. > > Waiting on a higher-level tool to assist the support guys ask for > 'dkms status' info may be appropriate for RHEL, but not for Fedora. My opinion is support shouldn't have to use 'dkms status' at all, it should be obvious that 3rd-party modules are loaded (i assume 'dkms status' just reports that as I'm not familiar with the tool). Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
