[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: DKMS into Fedora Extras



Am Montag, den 21.02.2005, 00:31 -0500 schrieb seth vidal:
> On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 14:05 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2005, 22:59 -0500 schrieb Warren Togami:
> >> Opinions here?  Is this something that we want in Extras?  (Is this sane 
> >> and unlikely to cause trouble?)
> >
> >I'm against including it. At least from a short look into the
> >presentation and in the rpm. My main concerns: 
> >
> >It can autorecomile modules and puts them into the proper kernel-modules
> >dir. This seems wrong very for me. Those files may overwrite existing
> >modules (okay, in fact it copies them away and installs the new one).
> >And the resulting modules are not in the rpmdb afaics. So if you remove
> >the kernel later the directory /lib/modules/$(uname -r) can't be deleted
> >by rpm. That a great problem IMHO cause the /lib/modules/ dir will soon
> >get messy.
> 
> What if it automatically built the module into an rpm then installed it?
> Would that be better? The major reason for wanting DKMS is to let it
> help us keep up with kernel modules in extras.

Well, even then I think DKMS buys us noting and is not worth the
trouble. We want to provide kernel-modules anyway and so we have to
prepare SRPMS. Why not use them to rebuild the kernel-module directly? 

A (small?) init-script could do this. This could also try first to
download the module from the web if it available -- this way you also
don't need to have special kernel-module-* magic in yum.

I'll sit down the next days and code something up to show you. AFAICS it
should not be to hard (but maybe I'm wrong)...

CU
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]