On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 11:00 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > 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. FWIW, this is not quite correct. When I first started working on the kernel module standard (back when I was the one-man-singing-dancing-standards-generation-engine), I looked at DKMS. (I even owned the package for a while in FE while Matt got his legal ducks in a row). The reason I discarded it was this: We can't expect end-users to have a build environment. At the time, dkms without a build environment wasn't all that interesting. Now, IMHO, if dkms would run against a kernel ver-variant string passed to it, and churn-churn-churn and spit out a set of kernel modules and a filelist for rpm to use, then it would be an ideal replacement for a lot of the kmod pain that we have today. Plus, it would do the building on the buildsystem, which is where it should be. (If dkms does this today, then super. Lets see an example spec.) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
