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

Re: The future of m-a and dkms

Am 14.02.2011 17:04, schrieb Marc Haber:
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

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

I don't think so, also the maintainer scripts execute the dkms build, e.g. [0].

But this would be a serious goal for dkms and its implementation in the maintainer scripts.

[0]: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fglrx/fglrx-driver/trunk/debian/fglrx-modules-dkms.postinst

Reply to: