On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:00:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:52:22 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote: > > > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if > > > it is still necessary to support module-assistant. > > > dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two different systems for > > > kernel modules is a bit bloated. > > With dkms, can you also create packages of the modules? > > > > At least I found it always very useful, to create modules with m-a, or > > via make-kpkg, and provide them via local archives to all my Debian > > boxes. Can save quite some compilation time, and one doesn't need kernel > > header + build packages etc. on all nodes. > > Yes, there is the "mkdeb" command-line option, but I suppose that > doesn't get as much testing as it should. With my sysadmin hat on, compilation on servers is a *very* big no-no, so if mkdeb doesn't work or if it doesn't provide nice modules, then m-a should stay in. I know that right now, when backporting stuff at work, we have to drop the DKMS stuff and write our own packaging since DKMS doesn't play nicely with multiple kernel versions, embedding the kernel *and* package version in the final module version, etc. Things might have changed recently, but last time I looked DKMS was only good for desktops, and not as a reliable package-building method. Of course, I might have wrong information, so clarifications welcome. regards, iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature