[arch-dev-public] Conclusion: DKMS modules

Sébastien Luttringer seblu at seblu.net
Wed Apr 13 00:05:13 UTC 2016

On mer., 2016-03-23 at 18:51 -1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> bla bla

> I really wish you'd argue in good faith instead of simply trying to
> steer things your way.

I started promoting a way to manage o-o-t modules with only dkms.
During the discussion, providing binary modules make consensus. So, I made a
concession and moved to a position close to yours, which can be sum as, if we
provide binary modules, we should provides them for all kernels.

Despite this 180° move, you ask me to not steer things my way.

On the other things you wrote, even after a 2 weeks break from Arch, the only
discredit I see from the whole discussion is from you and directed to me.

Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42
GPG: 0x2072D77A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20160413/87fe3b3b/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list