Re: modules
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 19:36 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:34:22PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 19:24 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Alright, I think I'm a fan of #2. The module maintainers upload their
> > > > packages to sid, with the binary package <module>-source in there. We
> > > > have a package called linux-external-modules that build-deps on all the
> > > > -source packages, and builds packages based upon them. The infrastructure
> > > > would be similar to the linux-2.6 package; gencontrol.py creates a huge
> > > > control file that lists each module (perhaps getting this list from the
> > > > build-dep list). This would look something like
> > >
> > > Problem with this would be that any -source breaking might mean breaking it
> > > all.
> >
> > That's why we test! ;)
> >
> > Anyways, it wouldn't break all, it would break all for a single
> > architecture. But yes, we would have to be pretty dynamic with what we
> > actually provide in terms of the modules, and apply pressure to -source
> > maintainers to fix FTBFS issues.
>
> What if the maintainers of those modules are MIA or otherwise unresponsive ? I
> would go for that only for out-of-tree modules that are hosted on either our
> kernel svn repo, or on a new kernel-modules svn repo (if we are afraid of
> giving commit rights to everyone).
>
We'd drop the build-dep on the broken modules.
#3 in dannf's list also seemed like a good idea, but we just need to get
infrastructure in place for that; is anyone working on it?
Reply to: