Re: The future of m-a and dkms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
> 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.
Well, dkms might be a good system for workstations, but on servers where
you want to have reliable systems and security first you do not want
dkms ever.
With m-a it was and is possible to create nice debian packages for
custom modules which can be installed on all systems getting all the
same modules. With dkms that is not possible. More over you need to have
a full gcc suite on all servers where you have custom modules. That is
not acceptable.
> I think there should be a decission for wheezy, how we should continue
> with it.
Why do you want to throw away good software in favour of a bloody hack?
I think debian is a server distribution with security and reliability in
mind and not a bleeding edge workstation that need to compile all
modules itself and is not that important to fail in security and/or
reliability.
Regards
Klaus
Ps. On all systems of mine I was forced to blacklist dkms via
preferences to not break my systems with custom kernel.
- --
Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.ch/
pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <Klaus@Ethgen.de>
Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBTVkPyZ+OKpjRpO3lAQo//Af+OmYUEljpIwESHLnRQ2Oq0aBBBx8vYvfF
V0TjV72R5oZpxyAy7PhGpp82YQGTrh28r1ms+kQlFsZfgJljidBD9fkvL/Uh2NTF
VSCfjEi10kclUsIDedsNQqtsKn7mJbuPzpmPu65yZDggOWzDfCkkYe25omlhkK+I
YDLv/c+VyNKOlFHgE/OiptEC1zqoxz0gosbasw1zGtVOfcyehW1sS9L5mqcyYX0L
fyCdQB18R2wy9oRxDr+D+VQdqQJKxCl1ADFyVLkyVomawxQtmJesXBFtnQO0rnmD
cLXIJWhjHwGY0fmNHipWd8iJf2slpqeZCeZBZho519k7bErDN0CgJw==
=NwPA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: