Re: The future of m-a and dkms
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:43:23 +0000, Ben Hutchings
<ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>> 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.
>
>DKMS was developed by Dell originally to support servers (as they
>did not sell any other systems running Linux until recently).
We all know which strange ideas hardware vendors have with regard to
system administration.
>This is not true. You can use 'dkms mkdeb' to build module packages
>elsewhere.
That would be an acceptable workaround. Is there any way to prevent
dkms from trying to build modules for the currently running kernel
when module sources are installed (which is bound to fail in my build
chroot)?
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: