On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:57 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 6/1/05, Elliot Lee <sopwith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Maybe it's time to start the brainstorming for Fedora Core 5 and Fedora > > Extras 5 - what major features are you willing to put effort into? > > Now that dkms is in Extras... and fc4 has kernel modules in Core. > How about for fc5 we put dkms in Core and have the kernel modules in > Core use dkms to alleviate some of the sync issues we saw this time > around in rawhide. DKMS doesn't solve the problem of the dependencies for the packages not matching, so it feels to me like you're just trying to be a troll. But I'll bite ;-) As far as I'm concerned, DKMS solves the wrong problem. As long as the user has to have a compiler installed to use it, it's not useful. As long as it's not an integrated part of the packaging system, it's not useful. That said, I think that cleaning up the interaction for kernel module packages and ensuring that everything is cleanly defined such that it can work is a good goal for FC5 and I'm willing to help out some to make it happen. Spot and I talked briefly about this in New Orleans and I think the plan is to restart that discussion after he gets back from a (much needed and deserved) vacation. Once _that_ is defined, then we can think about buildsystem triggers to ensure that the packages get rebuilt in a timely fashion and that the tree thus stays sane. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
