On 04.08.2007 03:55, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:23:33 -0800 > "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Just FYI, some of the concerns Jeremy raised last time dkms came up can be found in this thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg01211.html For example: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg01294.html I doubt things changed much. CU thl BTW, for Matt or other dkms lovers: can somebody please show a rough spec file example how to use dkms in a SRPM (that can be compiled with mock) that pre-compiles modules (that could get shipped in kmod packages) and produces a dkms file for dynamic kernel-module generation, that users could install? Both should use the same codepath for compilation, to avoid that we have to maintain two? I'd be really interested in that, because that is IMHO what we should aim for: Pre-compiled modules in packages for the masses, dynamic for the rest and the rare cases where users might run into problem, and maintain just one spec file/codepath. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
