[arch-dev-public] Conclusion: DKMS modules

Andreas Radke andyrtr at archlinux.org
Thu Mar 24 15:03:28 UTC 2016

Am Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:29:57 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>:

> I did.  Maxime said building modules for only linux and linux-lts is a
> good compromise. The Florian said "please go that route". Lukas was
> strongly in favour "of have binary modules for kernels from [core]".
> Gatean was in favour of having all kernels support binary modules.
> Hence my conclusion:
> "Binary modules are to be provided at minimum of all kernels in
> [core], with preference to providing them for all supported kernels
> (noting that out-of-tree modules may not work with some patched
> kernels)."

Building binary modules for LTS kernel is no big task and takes me 15
minutes when they break. The real work is done in the mainline vanilla
kernel (tpowa and module package maintainers).

I'm fine with providing binary modules as long as this is an easy task
for me to keep them building.

I see dkms more something for custom kernels and such stuff. I see no
need to have this in core or extra repo. There's no real advantage for
the user experience over binary modules. Community repo would be fine
for users who prefer to play with dkms stuff if not AUR.

-------------- 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/20160324/a07a5b44/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list