On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:53:22 -0800 "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Thursday. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
