[arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Ike Devolder]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:07:34PM +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> 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
> 

So after 2 or 3 mails we divert further from what I presumed was a sort
of consensus. Could we just take this to a vote or something because
this sort of impasse will only hurt the users.

1. vote for binary modules

- -ARCH
- [core]
- other?

2. vote for dkms

- all out-of-tree modules provide dkms
- dkms if the maintainer of the module is willing to do it
- no dkms (no longer an option I think)

proposal flow for kernel + binary module updates

- use separate repo [kernel-update{-testing,-staging}]
- announcement to the module maintainers there is an update for a kernel
- module maintainers build and push the packages in the respective repo
- kernel maintainer can move kernel + modules in the main repo

-- 
Ike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20160414/b93848a4/attachment.asc>