On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 15:47 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > 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. > I disagree. I'd rather not force users on laptops to be exposed to that level of pain. -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
