Request: contributor to put DKMS into Fedora Extras

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 14:27 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:

>Based on our past discussion about DKMS on this list, we have technical 
>concerns about it and are not sure this is a direction we want to head.

To be fair, most of the past discussion was legal. At FUDCon, I got a
chance to sit down with Matt, and he cleared up the legal confusion with
most of us at dinner (Warren, you might not have been there when he did
that).

>The kernel-devel and kernel-module-foo approach is something that we 
>have been working on as a supportable alternative.  We need to better 
>standardize, fix and document it, then better automate package builds in 
>order to provide all kernel modules quickly for new released kernels.

Believe it or not, I'm working on this. :)

>This being said if DKMS can live as an optional and inobtrusive 
>alternative to kernel-module-foo packages then it may be acceptable to 
>include both.  I am guessing that kernel module sources need to be 
>prepared specially for DKMS?  This may be fine if they NEVER conflict 
>with kernel-module-foo.

I'm supporting DKMS's inclusion on the grounds that it is a useful tool
for people who wish to use it to keep kernel modules current. With no
disrespect to Matt or Dell, I've no intention of standardizing on it for
Fedora Extras. Right now, it doesn't conflict with users installing
kernel-module-foo, and if it does, I'm sure Matt is willing to work with
us to resolve it.

People are using DKMS today, and I want to make life easier for them,
rather than refuse to include it.

The kernel-modules-* problem is my problem, and I'll deal with any
repercussions from DKMS.

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!