dkms coreward for fc5? (was Re: What next?)

[Jeremy Katz]

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:57 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 6/1/05, Elliot Lee <sopwith at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it's time to start the brainstorming for Fedora Core 5 and Fedora
> > Extras 5 - what major features are you willing to put effort into?
> 
> Now that dkms is in Extras... and fc4 has kernel modules in Core.
> How about for fc5 we put dkms in Core and have the kernel modules in
> Core use dkms to alleviate some of the sync issues we saw this time
> around in rawhide.

DKMS doesn't solve the problem of the dependencies for the packages not
matching, so it feels to me like you're just trying to be a troll.  But
I'll bite ;-)

As far as I'm concerned, DKMS solves the wrong problem.  As long as the
user has to have a compiler installed to use it, it's not useful.  As
long as it's not an integrated part of the packaging system, it's not
useful.

That said, I think that cleaning up the interaction for kernel module
packages and ensuring that everything is cleanly defined such that it
can work is a good goal for FC5 and I'm willing to help out some to make
it happen.  Spot and I talked briefly about this in New Orleans and I
think the plan is to restart that discussion after he gets back from a
(much needed and deserved) vacation.

Once _that_ is defined, then we can think about buildsystem triggers to
ensure that the packages get rebuilt in a timely fashion and that the
tree thus stays sane.

Jeremy