[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: dkms for fc7?



Denis Leroy schrieb:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
>> But seriously, I am pretty vehemently opposed to differing databases for
>> tracking installed software.  If the benefits of recompiling modules
>> automagically is big enough, then we should make sure that the _output_
>> of the recompilation is an rpm that we can install and track just like
>> anything else.  There's no reason that dkms couldn't do this.  
>>
>> At the same time, I don't think that's the default behavior that we want
>> for users who want extra kernel modules.  Instead, they should be able
>> to download, install and have them work just like the rest of the
>> software that we ship.

+1 to jeremy here

> dkms is solving a problem that people have *now*; frequent 'yum update' 
> breakage (unless you use --skip-broken).

I fail to follow you here, sorry. With the current kmod standard new
kernels get installed even if the kmods are not available, so
"--skip-broken" should not be needed. The kmods will get installed by
yum when avilable.

> Well, with a integrated Core+Extras build system, we could implement our 
> own automated kernel module rebuild system, a repo-level dkms if you 
> will.

That was always the plan for the current kmod standard already. But
nobody ever found time to drive it forward. Any volunteers?

> [...] So that yum won't 
> let you update your kernel if that would mean losing wireless access, 
> for example. 

A yum plugin can afaics already handle that, but I never tried it.

> We'll have to do this to resolve the firefox/galeon 
> breakages automatically also...

That should hopefully become easier in the merged world with the new
updates system.

CU
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]