On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 12:12:39PM -0400, Kelly wrote: > On Friday, August 03, 2007 10:46 pm Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:55:48 -0500 > > > > Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I'm not totally opposed to the idea, if the dkms system takes care of > > the logic of building the module when new kernels land and such. > > That was what Dell developed DKMS to handle; situations where people are > installing outside modules while updating the kernel frequently. Every time > a new kernel is booted, the autoinstalled automatically builds all installed > DKMS modules for the new kernel before it starts. It takes care of the > problem of having to create new packages for all the modules when the kernel > is updated. I've got a bugzilla request in (#250337) to add hooks to the kernel packages, which dkms can hook into. In this way, on kernel package upgrade/remove but before reboot, DKMS can do its thing. I'm doing this with hooks on Ubuntu/Debian kernel packages now, and it works great. That would make this even more seamless. -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
