On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 12:12:39PM -0400, Kelly wrote:
On Friday, August 03, 2007 10:46 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:55:48 -0500
>
> Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > And I am more and more starting to think this might be a _good_ idea.
> > Users that want modules we aren't willing to carry upstream can
> > install the dkms "payload" (as you described it) for the module,
> > build and install.
> >
> > Some might think this is too technical a hurdle for users to clear,
> > but I think it might be worth examining. Care to draft a proposal for
> > FESCo? We could evaluate it at the same time we do dwmw2/f13's.
>
> I'm not totally opposed to the idea, if the dkms system takes care of
> the logic of building the module when new kernels land and such.
That was what Dell developed DKMS to handle; situations where people are
installing outside modules while updating the kernel frequently. Every time
a new kernel is booted, the autoinstalled automatically builds all installed
DKMS modules for the new kernel before it starts. It takes care of the
problem of having to create new packages for all the modules when the kernel
is updated.
I've got a bugzilla request in (#250337) to add hooks to the kernel
packages, which dkms can hook into. In this way, on kernel package
upgrade/remove but before reboot, DKMS can do its thing. I'm doing
this with hooks on Ubuntu/Debian kernel packages now, and it works
great. That would make this even more seamless.
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com &
www.dell.com/linux