Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> writes: > Nowa Ammerlaan posted on Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:11:06 +0100 as excerpted: > >> I had really hoped to receive more comments on my earlier RFC. [...] >> I really do want to know what others think so I can >> make a better judgment on whether or not my idea is really this crazy >> and if I should just shut up about it or not (so dear reader if you have >> an opinion then please share). > > So because I carried over my own already "works for me" kernel maintenance > scripts from Mandrake when I switched in 2004 and have continued > maintaining and using them over the decades since, I normally try to stay > out of Gentoo kernel packaging discussion. But given both the above > explicit invitation and that as I've read the thread a thought occurred to > me... > > First, DKMS /is/ a cross-distro standard solution. As such, I believe in > general it should be reasonably supported in Gentoo unless it simply > doesn't make sense (note that "doesn't make sense" can also include the > case of simply no one stepping up to do it, not the case here). > > But, the thought that occurred to me reading the thread, was that there > are obvious parallels between this and another very significant and > controversial now "cross distro standard solution" (which I guess I don't > need to name explicitly). > > As there, I believe "the Gentoo approach" should (again assuming developer > willingness to do the work, seemingly the case here) make it available as > an additional integrated *option*, while keeping the current Gentoo option > as well. > > So I support DKMS integration /as/ /an/ /option/.
I do generally appreciate your input, but I'll note that this email boils down to "choice is good" (even though you're seemingly not going to use this at all). This is somewhat of a meme and doesn't really make sense in isolation, given maintainability and clear documentation is always something we have to weigh up more options with.
