[arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

Gaetan Bisson bisson at archlinux.org
Tue Mar 15 16:53:20 UTC 2016

[2016-03-15 10:06:22 +1000] Allan McRae:
> 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 me the issue is people pushing new kernels to the repos but not being
able to provide the same level of support that we have for mainline.
Offloading out-of-tree module rebuilds to end users instead of doing it
ourselves is clearly not the right solution.

So I say: remove each non-mainline kernel of which the maintainer is
unwilling to support the corresponding out-of-tree modules. After all,
as Allan points out, rebuilding them is a simple script job...



More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list