[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The future of m-a and dkms

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: