On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 15:05 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: [...] > I'm also not sure how kernel maintainers see (new) OOT modules in the > archive (AFAIUI the general feeling is: there should be no OOT > modules, period; but I might be misremembering things, I don't follow > kernel things closely enough). > > -kernel@: your opinion on those? Quoting from the report of our 2009 meeting, <20091015123106.GA16736@kyllikki.org>: > out of tree modules > ------------------- > > After a somewhat involved discussion taking into account the FTP > masters extreme irritation about trying to match binaries to source by > hand for the lenny release it was resolved to remove > linux-modules-extra and -nonfree as they are an impossible to support > approach. The Built-Using header should cover FTP masters' concerns. However it is still the case that omnibus source packages are unsustainable as many OOT modules are not kept up to date with the kernel API. > A few modules the project really want/must have will be placed > directly into the linux-2.6 source Linux has plenty of fine filesystems to choose from already, so this is not a must-have. Also, there are questions as to whether it would be legal. > The kernel team would endorse the use of dkms as a way for out-of-tree > module maintainers to get their modules auto-built. Doesn't work for d-i, of course. It might be possible to reintroduce OOT module support in the linux-support-* packages (plus a metapackage) so that OOT module maintainers could easily add binary packages of their modules for all flavours. But it would take a fair amount of work on both sides - it requires a source upload and a trip through NEW for every kernel ABI bump. Ben. > Ben Hutchings to talk to Greg K H about extra modules being merged > into staging tree. -- Ben Hutchings friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part