On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:23:33 -0800 "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/3/07, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > By DKMS payloads, are you referring to DKMS-packaged source RPMs for > > the modules in question? So that a user would install dkms-foo-mod > > and then use dkms to build and install it? > > > I wouldn't necessarily package them as source rpms. I'd want them to > be noarch packages that people can install and get updates for, as bug > fixes come down the pipe. But to make use of them they'd have to > install dkms and the necessary build tools themselves which dkms makes > use of. By source RPMs I didn't mean .src.rpm. I meant the payload that is installed from dkms-foo-mod is the source of the module that you want DKMS to build. I think we're saying the same thing. And I am more and more starting to think this might be a _good_ idea. Users that want modules we aren't willing to carry upstream can install the dkms "payload" (as you described it) for the module, build and install. Some might think this is too technical a hurdle for users to clear, but I think it might be worth examining. Care to draft a proposal for FESCo? We could evaluate it at the same time we do dwmw2/f13's. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
