Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 02:10:44AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It is pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the need for the official
> > packaging policy for the out-of-tree kernel modules is long overdue. As
> > mentioned on the wiki page dedicated to it [0], the current situation is
> > a mess. I would like to call for a formal discussion, which will
> > eventually lead to the formulation of such policy. As a first step I
> > propose to just throw the ideas around and figure out what we want the
> > module infra- stracture to be capable of. Then, we can discuss technical
> > aspects of it, and prepare a draft policy.
> > 
> > Below are the things I would like to see implemented in module building
> > infrastructure. Note that I do not maintain any module packages myself,
> > so my opinions and proposals might be naive in some aspects, so feel
> > free to correct.
> > 
> > * Unified way to build the modules. I think module-assistant is the
> > sanest way to implement it in a reasonable time frame.
> 
> Agreed. M-a has documentation that describes how to package your third
> party module.  We should also make it policy that module source packages
>  should simply create <modname>-source; it should have no binary modules
> created.  Other stuff should take care of that.

Andres, can you give a rationale about why there should be no binary modules
created ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther