Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello *,
> some time ago I filed a RFS  for DKMS , and Daniel Baumann <daniel> asked
> me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
> After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer.
If you decided to package it, you must have had your own motivation, what
was it? (Was it based on the fact that the ubuntu package had a high
popcon score as you mention it in the RFS?)
In any case, I strongly believe that we have to go further in the support
of external modules and that something in the spirit of DKMS is really
needed. There are however a couple of design decision to take and I
strongly suggest you to get some review of the choices that will have to be
made (IMO it should include -devel and -email@example.com).
IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not
acceptable. And if we want to install new packages semi-automatically,
we have to design something for this purpose: it should probably support
some user-interaction to let the user confirm/infirm the suggestion made
by the tool that requested the package in the first place.
> This mail is being sent to see what Debian developers (and users) think about
> this framework: it's useless if no package uses it :)
Indeed, that's why it's important to have the kernel team involved and
Daniel in particular as he currently takes care of
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :