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

Bug#454431: marked as done (debian-policy: Policy for module sources needed)

Your message dated Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:17:37 -0600
with message-id <87hciv5bim.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
and subject line This is not suitable for a policy action at this time
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal

I think we should have policy for module source packages that specifies
how such a package should look like. There are several ways to build a
kernel module from a source file and some (at least the inclusion in
linux-modules-extra/contrib/non-free) are not easily tryable by the
maintainer of the source package.

The current policy in linux-modules-* is:

A module source package works with l-m-e, or it doesn't.

So I gather it's the source maintainer's job to make sure it compiles
inside the framework. But there is no documentation available about
linux-modules-* at all. 

The process might change again in the future which might make the
situation even more complex. Therefore I think there should be some
(sub) policy explaining what to do.

Michael

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

> I think we should have policy for module source packages that specifies
> how such a package should look like. There are several ways to build a
> kernel module from a source file and some (at least the inclusion in
> linux-modules-extra/contrib/non-free) are not easily tryable by the
> maintainer of the source package.

> The current policy in linux-modules-* is:

> A module source package works with l-m-e, or it doesn't.

> So I gather it's the source maintainer's job to make sure it compiles
> inside the framework. But there is no documentation available about
> linux-modules-* at all. 

> The process might change again in the future which might make the
> situation even more complex. Therefore I think there should be some
> (sub) policy explaining what to do.

        Sounds like there is no consensus on how module source packages
 are built. I agree that a standardized, well defined procedure of
 creating kernel module packages is desirable, and some design work
 needs to go into creating a process which is general, robust, and easy
 for others to adopt; which is not an easy task. If the process is
 likely to change, as you suggest, then that makes it even less a policy
 candidate at this point.

        However, policy is not where design work is done; the first
 order of business is to decide on what such a package should look like,
 how the building of a module would happen, work through what it would
 take to make the concept general enough for most, if not all, module
 packages, and try and get people to adapt to this.

        At that point, a draft policy detailing the existing practice
 could be created (hopefully, at that point, all the kinks would have
 been ironed out), and _then_ it would be an action item for the policy
 package.

        manoj
-- 
He was part of my dream, of course -- but then I was part of his dream
too. Lewis Carroll
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--- End Message ---
Reply to: