Re: RFC: Thoughts on building modules
Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:
> Note that all of the solutions I discussed involved this complexity.
> I was objecting to your implication that setting up module source
> packages was as simple as setting up arch-specific kernel image
> packages, not saying the complexity was unnecessary.
A lot of the complexities in module building currently arise out of poorly
constructed upstream build systems. Building a good modules package
should be as simple as supplying the right -I flag and running make.
Once you've got that the rest is quite trivial.
Unfortunately, there is no general way of fixing build systems so it has
to be done on a case-by-case basis. There's no way around it I'm afraid.
> I'd buy that if all three potential directions I presented in my first
> message weren't ways around this. Module packages really aren't that
> different from normal packages; there is a lot of kernel code that is
> not arch specific. I agree that kernel packages are arch specific and
If you succeed in finding a way I'd love to hear it. However, I am
doubtful whether such a way exists as in the end, you need to have one
module package per kernel-image package. And the kernel-image packages
are arch-specific, so there has to be some arch-specific elements in
your source package. There's nothing stopping you from aggregating this
all into the one source package. However, as you have pointed out
earlier, this has the unfortunate consequence of requiring a global udpate
when a single architecture changes.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: