On 8/3/07, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. We might also want to think about enabling optional magic in something like /sbin/new-kernel-pkg for systems with dkms configured to attempt dkms payload rebuilds on new kernel installs. If we do not even attempt to provide the binary module against a kernel, we avoid the never-ending game of catch-up that we have to play in the build system with traditional kmod packages when a new kernel is pushed. And I think it sends a clear message that these things are more experimental in nature. > > 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. I should be able to draft a proposal. When's the next meeting? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
