Hello Jose, On 2024/05/30, Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez wrote: > The following tests to verify weak dependencies have been implemented: > 1) modprobe test to check that related weakdep modules are not loaded > due to being a weakdep. > 2) depmod test to check weakdep output. > 3) user test to check that configuration files with weakdep are parsed > correctly and related weakdep modules can be read correctly from user > applications. > > Signed-off-by: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- Seems like this commit has regressed make distcheck on my end. Namely I'm running the following commands: git clone ... cd kmod git clean -fxd ./autogen.sh c make distcheck Result in: ... make[5]: *** No rule to make target '.../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground/mod-weakdep.o', needed by '.../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground/mod-weakdep.mod'. Stop. make[4]: *** [Makefile:1903: .../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground] Error 2 Can you reproduce it on your end? While in the area, a couple of question if I may: - Should we move the new weakdeps API in libkmod/libkmod.sym near the end in a separate LIBKMOD_XX section? As-is, it looks like we're adding symbols to what should be a frozen set (aka LIBKMOD_5, which was released decade+ ago). Admittedly there was a similar erroneous(?) change not loo long ago - 9becaae ("libkmod: Add lookup from module name"). @Lucas can/should we fix the kmod_module_new_from_name_lookup symbol in the version script? - Is this work related to the weak-modules used in RHEL/Fedora [1]? Alternatively, would the RedHat team consider having the weak-modules solution in upstream kmod? ... assuming Lucas is OK with the idea. I'm approaching with with my dkms co-maintainer hat on, where the fewer "if distro == X" logic we have the better. Thanks in advance, Emil [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kmod/blob/rawhide/f/weak-modules