[arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules
ike.devolder at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 10:14:30 UTC 2016
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...
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the arch-dev-public