[arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-04-13 15:44, Ike Devolder wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:05:36PM +0200, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Ike Devolder <ike.devolder at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Please don't add modules for -zen to the repos. They create a maintenance
>> burden I don't want to support. Let -zen users use DKMS; they never had any
>> prebuilt modules anyway.
> 
> That makes it easier for me. So we stick to binary modules for [core]
> kernels and the rest does dkms as a middle way.
> 

Let's wait for Andreas opinion on this, but I think that binary modules
for -lts are unnecessary. I always used this kernel for servers (where I
don't really care about Virtualbox or Nvidia…) and sometimes a fallback
if -ARCH is broken.

Bartłomiej

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20160413/5ae09ae8/attachment.asc>