On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:13:43PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding kernel modules, as many, I got tired of : > 1) Packaging them as binary rpms, tracking new kernels to release new > packages (it's almost impossible to track Rawhide btw). > 2) Endless discussions about what packaging method is the best, upgrade > paths, ugliness of versions inside names, common vs. kernel specific > bits etc. etc. > > So I decided to go for the dkms approach to install 3rd party kernel > modules, and things got so much simpler. It's pretty obvious : If one > can issue a simple "make" to get a required module, why go through so > much complexity for rpm packages? > > There are two possible discussions which can start here : > > 1) What do Fedora packagers think of dkms? Up to now, no kernel modules > packages using dkms have been released in Extras, nor in 3rd party > repositories AFAIK. Maybe there are some good reasons, in which case > I'm interested in knowing them. The dell-software repo http://linux.dell.com/repo/software/ distributes openipmi, dcdbas, and dell_rbu for RHEL[34], SLES9, and FC[34] because those distros didn't originally have them. We've since gotten those driver into kernel.org and therefore newer kernels and distro versions, which has always been our goal all along - use DKMS as a stop-gap until upstream and every distro kernel has a good-enough version of each driver to not need to package them separately. I'm glad for all the renewed interest, I had no idea how many people were really packaging drivers using DKMS outside of Dell and our immediate partners. And yes, I owe Jon Masters some more time getting DKMS fully up to speed with the work he's been doing with kerneldrivers.org and KMPs. I'm getting there, I promise! Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
