[arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

Andreas Radke andyrtr at archlinux.org
Thu Apr 14 16:54:12 UTC 2016

Am Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:29:33 +0200
schrieb Ike Devolder <ike.devolder at gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:06:35PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 14/04/16 19:23, Ike Devolder wrote:  
> > > - use separate repo [kernel-update{-testing,-staging}]  
> > 
> > Why?   We have staging for rebuilds like these.  
> So we can have easier updates when a kernel is updated in both core
> and testing.
> In that case we would have to land a kernel in core and then update
> the modules as fast as possible. If this update process has its own
> repo you can make sure the updates of the kernel and its out-of-tree
> modules happen on the same time.

There's no need for new repos.

I'm for  binary modules for our -ARCH main kernel pkg. I see no real
need for -lts modules but if there're a few people who find them
useful I can handle the kernel rebuilds.

No opinion about dkms at all. DKMS could be useful if a foo-dkms pkg is
able to detect all local kernels and build required modules without
interaction. dkms packages for kernel for which we provide binary
modules doesn't provide any more comfort for the user to me.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20160414/2402b437/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list