Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] DKMS modules for virtualbox
We could stop splitting kernel headers out of the kernel package? As a user I think it would be ace if we had binary modules for those that want them but I have recently started using dkms modules again, and find it clearly superior for out of tree modules. (I maintain a couple of kernels myself, and for instance creating/updating and building nvidia packages is really somewhat of a pain). Personally I'd like to see the extramodules patching in the kernel buildscripts go away too ;) -- Joakim
On 03/09/2016 06:55 AM, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
We could stop splitting kernel headers out of the kernel package?
We could require the majority of users, who don't use dkms or perhaps don't even use any additional kernel modules at all (binary OR dkms), to install a kernel package that grew from 70 MB to 100 MB??? No. Absolutely no. That is just insane, why do you think they were ever split in the first place? That would be a far, far, far more unpopular move (with pretty much everyone) than a relatively minor issue with the subset of Arch virtualbox users. People using dkms will just need to learn to install the headers manually. If people don't realize they need kernel headers, that is an argument to not push dkms vs. binary on unsuspecting users. Or to have a mandatory dependency on a kernel-headers package. I suspect *both* of these will happen. -- Eli Schwartz
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:22:58 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
People using dkms will just need to learn to install the headers manually.
I agree with this. A while back, when a kernel was upgraded, it was an issue that the kernel image package was upgraded, before the headers package was upgraded, so building the modules failed. I guess this isn't an issue anymore. Another issue could be, that we forget to run 'dkms remove', as I did a few days ago, before a new version of e.g. virtualbox replaces the old version. Now one user wasn't aware that the headers package is required, but this user noticed it. IOW, if an issue appears, then we notice it and we are usually able to solve it easily. Changing the policy likely does cause confusion. A lot of users don't need kernel headers at all. OTOH pacman.conf's NoExtract would still allow to not install the headers, if they should become part of the kernel package. If free media space should be an issue, I doubt that packages will be kept in the cache specified by pacman.conf's CacheDir, resp. makepkg.conf's PKGDEST, so the package size unlikely matters. Regards, Ralf
participants (3)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Joakim Hernberg
-
Ralf Mardorf