[Fedora-packaging] Kernel modules packaged for dkms

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Oct 13 01:49:37 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 11:00 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:

> IIRC dkms was never *really* considered for the kernel module standard, 
> everybody was too busy arguing over uname-r in name, how to handle 
> debuginfo packages, what kind of macro magic to include, how many kernels 
> to build for in buildsys, how to teach the kmod scheme to buildsys etc.

FWIW, this is not quite correct. When I first started working on the
kernel module standard (back when I was the
one-man-singing-dancing-standards-generation-engine), I looked at DKMS.
(I even owned the package for a while in FE while Matt got his legal
ducks in a row). The reason I discarded it was this:

We can't expect end-users to have a build environment.

At the time, dkms without a build environment wasn't all that

Now, IMHO, if dkms would run against a kernel ver-variant string passed
to it, and churn-churn-churn and spit out a set of kernel modules and a
filelist for rpm to use, then it would be an ideal replacement for a lot
of the kmod pain that we have today. Plus, it would do the building on
the buildsystem, which is where it should be.

(If dkms does this today, then super. Lets see an example spec.)

Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always
that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence
and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We
will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in
our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended
from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to
associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
-- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list