On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:53:22 -0800
"Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/3/07, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> By source RPMs I didn't mean .src.rpm. I meant the payload that is
> installed from dkms-foo-mod is the source of the module that you
> want DKMS to build. I think we're saying the same thing.
> And I am more and more starting to think this might be a _good_
> idea. Users that want modules we aren't willing to carry upstream
> can install the dkms "payload" (as you described it) for the
> module, build and install.
We might also want to think about enabling optional magic in something
like /sbin/new-kernel-pkg for systems with dkms configured to attempt
dkms payload rebuilds on new kernel installs.
If we do not even attempt to provide the binary module against a
kernel, we avoid the never-ending game of catch-up that we have to
play in the build system with traditional kmod packages when a new
kernel is pushed. And I think it sends a clear message that these
things are more experimental in nature.
>
> Some might think this is too technical a hurdle for users to clear,
> but I think it might be worth examining. Care to draft a proposal
> for FESCo? We could evaluate it at the same time we do dwmw2/f13's.
I should be able to draft a proposal. When's the next meeting?
Thursday.
josh