On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 17:10 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote : > > Heck, why don't we also stop packaging perl modules as RPMs. I mean, > > there's CPAN, right? And there's now the cheeseshop + setuptools for > > python. > > Well, we just don't push out a new perl version to the released updates > every few weeks :-) > If the Fedora kernel never got updated, and only got bugfixes, then > maybe kernel module packages would work well enough with weak symbols > and such... but it would mean just too much wasted effort. If only upstream would work like that :-) But seriously, I am pretty vehemently opposed to differing databases for tracking installed software. If the benefits of recompiling modules automagically is big enough, then we should make sure that the _output_ of the recompilation is an rpm that we can install and track just like anything else. There's no reason that dkms couldn't do this. At the same time, I don't think that's the default behavior that we want for users who want extra kernel modules. Instead, they should be able to download, install and have them work just like the rest of the software that we ship. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
