On jeu., 2016-03-24 at 08:29 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 24/03/16 07:28, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On mer., 2016-03-23 at 13:08 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: 1) No one support that we should manage kernels differently because they are under different repository. ==> We must manage them all the same way.
I did.
Maxime said building modules for only linux and linux-lts is a good compromise. Maxime says exactly: "I feel that what Sebastien proposed, ie having built modules only for linux and linux-lts, and DKMS everywhere else would be a good compromise IMHO."
Unfortunately, I never proposed linux-lts, it was you. So, I asked you the reason on IRC: [2016-03-21 20:32:47] <seblu> amcrae: why do you want to manage core kernels differently than others? And moreover, who cares of -lts nowdays? [2016-03-21 23:50:44] <amcrae> seblu: I don't want to manage core kernels different - preferably all kernels are provided with binary modules Reading this, and as you were behind the "core kernels" group, I was expecting you conclude to binary module for the arch kernel, dkms for the rest. Which is not coherent with the "we are a binary distro", but a common ground.
4) No one object to having dkms available for all modules; It's even supported by several fellows and this is offering support for AUR and custom kernels at almost no maintenance cost. ==> We must provides dkms build for all modules. Except those covered by 2. As I said, no-one objected to DKMS modules. But no opinions were stated whether they must be provided.
I did, and Maxime: "I am somehow biased and in favor of DKMS everywhere" Florian: "Please go that route" (the route also refer to DKMS everywhere). Bartłomiej: "IMHO we should have DKMS for all external modules" Lukas: "I like the idea of having DKMS in the repo"
5) There is no much discussion about which should be the default (a binary flavor or dkms). I would propose a solution which let the user choose which module he want needs by pulling a defined dep like module-$modulename. ==> Applications should pull a generic deps to let users decide which module he wants (flavored or dkms). REALLY? You need to read that thread again. Default binary was strongly supported.
Yes, binaries are preferred, that was not my point. The keyword was flavor. For example, vbox was pulling the binary modules for the -arch kernel by default, not the -lts one or others. As we don't have a way to select the correct kernel version I find more elegant to pull a virtual name which is provided. But like point 6 and 7, I feel you'll claim that is not part of the discussion. So, let's see that later. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42 GPG: 0x2072D77A