On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 11:00 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Matthias Saou wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
[...]
Well, dkms kernel-modules are not directly forbidden (at least it's not
written down somewhere), but we choose to use kmod for kernel-module
packages -- so they are not allowed AFAICS.
Then I'd like the people who pushed the kmod scheme to be accepted to
try and get it to be 100% functional ASAP, as the whole build server
side, to get automated rebuilds for all newly released kernels is quite
far from being implemented (unless I'm mistaken).
IIRC dkms was never *really* considered for the kernel module standard,
everybody was too busy arguing over uname-r in name, how to handle
debuginfo packages, what kind of macro magic to include, how many kernels
to build for in buildsys, how to teach the kmod scheme to buildsys etc.
I think dkms is a good solution for sysadmins managing a bunch of
systems - but for our use situation it causes issues b/c we want people
to be able to install and use kernel modules w/o having to build them
and/or have all the build tools installed.
Requiring clients to have build tools installed is a downside to dkms,
yes, but me thinks it's really just a minor nuisance compared to the
hideous mess of kernel module rpms.
- Panu -
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
