Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> Only down side I worry about is that having such a solution encourages
> out-of-tree drivers. Personally, I'd prefer if Debian were to adopt
> some variation of Fedora's policy:
That may be true for an out-of-tree modules. However, let's recall that
Fedora ships with Latest kernel and Debian (Stable) doesn't. Hence
Debian should be more concerened with backporting.
(Discalimer: I work for a company that ships hardware using a badly
out-of-tree module. While we try to fix that, there is little we can do.
One of the arguments used by those opposing getting that code into the
kernel is the longer release cycle that would mean it takes some monthes
from the time we're done with internal QA till customers start using the
Tzafrir Cohen | email@example.com | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
firstname.lastname@example.org | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend