DKMS into Fedora Extras

[Ville Skyttä]

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:56 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 18:38 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> >Of course we can rebuild kernel-modules in extras an push then the same
> >time when a new kernel goes out. Then we only have to solve the
> >install/yum/apt problem.
> 
> Yes. This is more in line with my thoughts. We should able to teach the
> Extras buildsystem (no, not Seth) to watch updates for new kernels, and
> rebuild packages marked as kernel-modules to match. New packages marked
> as kernel-modules get built for all available kernels.
> 
> This requires some things (off the top of my head):
> - buildsystem awareness of the kernel packages in Fedora Core (and
> updates), but it shouldn't be terribly difficult, will just require
> network connectivity, kept in a table so that new "kernel-module"
> packages can be built for all available kernels.
> - a mechanism for marking a package as a "kernel-module" package

At least "Provides: kernel-module" and "Provides: kernel-modules" are
already in module packages out there for this purpose.

> - kernel-module packages will need to identify the kernel package they
> were built for, so that yum/apt can resolve dependencies.
> - yum/apt will need to handle kernel-module packages in the same way it
> handles kernel packages (allow multiple packages to be installed, rpm -i
> instead of rpm -U, remove matching kernel-module packages when kernel is
> removed)

Also:
- It should be possible to build the module packages also outside of The
Buildsystem, preferably with no specfile/SRPM changes required.
- Ditto against custom kernels that are packaging-wise compatible with
the FC kernels.

Some additional more or less related issues more or less in progress:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/145914
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/147553
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/149210
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/149249

> The biggest downside to this is that it means that we have a LOT of
> "kernel-module" packages in FE (one per kernel per package), but I think
> the end-user transparency is worth it.

Ditto.

Back to the original topic: FWIW, I'm not against including DKMS in
Extras.  Including it does not automatically mean that it would be the
Ultimate Official way to build modules for Extras at all.