On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:06:22AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 14/03/16 09:07, Allan McRae wrote:
On 13/03/16 00:52, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Please note that as an ideal target, I would have all our kernel modules available via dkms _and_ via prebuilt modules for each kernel flavor we provide. I read on the dev IRC that few modules could only be shipped from sources. Not sure of that btw.
For example, we could, for simplicity says that we provide pre-built modules only for the main kernel and dkms for all others kernels.
What I would like is a team consensus/decision on how we handle kernel oot modules not complains directed on virtualbox only.
I vote for binary modules for all kernels in [core] and dkms versions. Kernels outside of [core] can have binary modules provided at the maintainer's choice.
We are going to need more opinions here to build a consensus...
A
To get this discussion back on the right track I'm going to build the binary modules for virtualbox. Sébastien and myself already discussed what will be done so relatively soon those binary modules will be back. My plan is now to provide the virtualbox modules for -arch -lts and -zen. I think -grsec will be the exception since there are probably protections in there that will block some modules to even build. And when everyone is happy again we probaly should proceed to provide dkms for all out-of-tree modules alongside the binary modules. That would benefit everyone and offer the greatest amount of choice. People using custom kernels can use dkms and have everything working that way and people using one of the kernels available in the repo's can choose if they want dkms or binary. Everyone wins. -- Ike