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

Re: The future of m-a and dkms

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:43:23PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> > 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.
> DKMS was developed by Dell originally to support servers (as they
> did not sell any other systems running Linux until recently).

That doesn't mean it's a good solution for servers, just that it can be
used on servers too. With bad results, see below.

> > 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.
> [...]
> This is not true.  You can use 'dkms mkdeb' to build module packages
> elsewhere.

As others have said in this thread (and from my experience too), you
can't use dkms mkdeb to build and install separate packages for two
kernel versions but same module. That is because it uses only the
package name & version in the module paths, hence it doesn't support
nice upgrades.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: