On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:00 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote: > > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], 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. Not really: DKMS tarballs are meant to be included in-tree, as Mario himself stated. I'd not say that m-a encourages out-of-tree drivers... > Personally, I'd prefer if Debian were to adopt some variation of Fedora's > policy: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules This page says: "Fedora prefers in-tree modules, out-of-tree modules are not permitted and should be merged instead". We all agree here, no? But, what the case of non-free drivers, for example? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal The main point: "There is no justification for shipping kernel modules as separate packages within Fedora, in either source (dkms payload) or binary (kmod/kmdl) form. If code is good enough to ship, it should be shipped in the kernel package. If it's not, then it should not be shipped at all with the 'Fedora' name on it." Totally agree with this. But we, as Debian, being the "Universal Operating System", should, IMVHO, try to support most types of technologies: as stated by other people (corsac, for example), most hardware vendors provide DKMS tarballs, why not supporting it? Why negate the users the ability to download a tarball from the vendor's website and install it flawlessly? Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature