dkms coreward for fc5? (was Re: What next?)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Sonntag, den 05.06.2005, 22:26 -0400 schrieb Jeremy Katz:
> On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:57 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 6/1/05, Elliot Lee <sopwith at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe it's time to start the brainstorming for Fedora Core 5 and Fedora
> > > Extras 5 - what major features are you willing to put effort into?
> > 
> > Now that dkms is in Extras... and fc4 has kernel modules in Core.
> > How about for fc5 we put dkms in Core and have the kernel modules in
> > Core use dkms to alleviate some of the sync issues we saw this time
> > around in rawhide.

I'm against using DKMS in core. IMHO it solves the problem in the wrong
way. It was nice in the 2.4 days but IMHO the overhead from dkms with
2.6 kernels is way to much.

But to be more productive: Lets discuss kernelmodule packaging, dkms and
the issues with updateing kernel-module packages somewhere on the lists.
Especially with those who maintain kernel-module packages already for a
long time (Ville, moZer, C. Feist, me are the first who come to my mind;
surely i missed someone). If we agree on dkms then I have no problem
with it. But saying "we have X in extras so let use it in core now" is
IMHO the wrong approach (and maybe stupid). 

> DKMS doesn't solve the problem of the dependencies for the packages not
> matching,

And not the yum update problem for those who don't want to install
gcc-stuff.

CU
thl