On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 17:56 +0100, Alan Woodland wrote: [...] > The library behaves sanely without the kernel module and dropping just > the -dkms package would be my preferred solution. Most binaries that > use BLCR are built to run in environments where the presence of the > kernel part isn't a given. Upstream doesn't have funding at the moment > to add support for newer kernels (they sound like it's something they > hope to return to though) and my attempts at developing a patch were > largely unsuccessful, i.e. worse than no patch at all. Unfortunately checkpoint/restore is not something that can be implemented properly without explicit support in the kernel, i.e. it's not suitable for an out-of-tree module. This has gradually being added and I think it is mostly done upstream, but much of that is post-3.2. Hopefully libcr will be updated in future to make use of the new kernel mechanisms rather than its own module. > I anticipate that the library itself ought to be useable when such a > patch arrives. > > There's a bug outstanding for dropping the Recommends to Suggests on > the kernel module, that combined with removing the -dkms package > should be sufficient for releasing without storing up pain for the > future in my view. Yes, that sounds like a reasonable thing to do for now. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part