Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On mer, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > Should I continue working on DKMS for Debian, or is that all wasted > time? Go ahead, it *will* be useful, and isn't intended to replace module-assistant anyway. It may have some problems, but they will be identified, reported and fixed. C

Re: Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

So, what's the final status of this thread? Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it? I wouldn't want to drop it -- if there's no consensus or, at least, someone wanting it -- and wanting to *sponsor* it, or someone that will actually *use* it, I believe I'll put that on my pri

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > Hello *, > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2] > > So, what's the final status of this thread? > Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it? > > I w

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > Hello *, > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2] So, what's the final status of this thread? Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it? I wouldn't want to drop it -- if there's no consensus or, at least, someone w

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 07:54 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit : > On dim, 2008-09-14 at 22:36 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > (DKMS actually moves the old version out of the way and > > moves the new version into its place. I think we might want to modify > > that behaviour in Debian, perhap

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > That may be true for an out-of-tree modules. However, let's recall that > Fedora ships with Latest kernel and Debian (Stable) doesn't. Hence > Debian should be more concerened with backporting. Right now Debian does have the latest stable

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On dim, 2008-09-14 at 09:15 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit : > > And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is > that > > you can not install two of them on your system if you have two > different > > kernel va

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit : > And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is that > you can not install two of them on your system if you have two different > kernel variants. Then it is a bug in the Debian dkms package, and one that shou

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 09:32:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]: > > > > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is > > > > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and > > > > obvious way of integrit

Re: Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

So, DKMS is being run after the installation of a kernel. Am I right? Yes. Btw, is all this documented anywhere? I guess it isn't. Kindly, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]: > > > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is > > > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and > > > obvious way of integrity protection. > > > > Dpkg is not tripwire. If you think you can re

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

OoO En cette matinée ensoleillée du samedi 13 septembre 2008, vers 09:08, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait : > Do not assume everybody maintaining the system know of dkms (or of m-a > or such). Knowledge of debsums or equivalent should be assumed from > anybody maintaining a Debian s

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On sam, 2008-09-13 at 06:21 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Can you do that if you generate modules for both 2.6.26-1-686 and > 2.6.26-1-vserver-686 ? Will tell you on monday. -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On sam, 2008-09-13 at 00:21 +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote: > > No. You only need dkms. > > > Hmm... How does dkms build the modules for a build kernel, then? > Surely a compiler and linker must be needed, right? You build the module on the build host, then put it on a .deb package. You install

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 01:54:43AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 00:44 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit : > > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is > > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and > > obvious way of integ

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:28:49PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On ven, 2008-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we > > won’t > > > ship binary packages for. > > > > Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 00:44 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit : > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and > obvious way of integrity protection. Dpkg is not tripwire. If you think you can rely on dpkg

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

David Paleino wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > >> Furthermore, m-a is part of the package management system, which is a >> good thing. Indeed, as reasoned below >> [...] >> >> Building packages should be the norm. Having many files under /lib that >> cannot

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On ven, 2008-09-12 at 11:32 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > >> This is a major bug IMHO. It means that at least for i386 >> dkms-generated >> debs cannot be put in repositories. Thus you require a build >> environment >> on the target host. >> > > No. You only need

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On ven, 2008-09-12 at 11:32 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > This is a major bug IMHO. It means that at least for i386 > dkms-generated > debs cannot be put in repositories. Thus you require a build > environment > on the target host. No. You only need dkms. -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Descripti

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On ven, 2008-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we > won’t > > ship binary packages for. > > Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb of those modules > and > installing them? That's exactly what “dkms mkdeb” do

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Upon initial inspection of the dkms script, it seems to generate > deb packages whose name does not not include $KVERS . But I didn't test > it. > This is correct, because you don't want to have multiple DKMS packages installed to support many versions of the kernel modu

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb of those modules and > installing them? I think this is going out of the scope of dpkg to be able to recursively install packages that it was not even asked to install. > Th

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not > > acceptable. > > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we won’t > ship binar

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:32:07 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:04PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > > > Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name > > > installed on the system.

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:04PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name > > installed on the system. dpkg does not like this. Hence kernel modules > > deb packages have

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Furthermore, m-a is part of the package management system, which is a > good thing. If my repository contains -modules packages, they will bo > automatically upgraded upon a new version of the module. > > Building packages should be the n

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > *Usability & Maintainability* > > 3) You don't need to know much about what you are doing in order to install a > package that uses DKMS. If you look at the kqemu-source package in Ubuntu, > the > moment you install it, it builds

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann > > asked > > me what advantages it had over module-assistant. > > After some talking with

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:13:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > > IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not > > acceptable. > > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we wo

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not > acceptable. Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we won’t ship binary packages for. As long as the .ko files are correctly r

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

@debian-kernel: please see the full thread at On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:00:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, Hi Raphael, > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > > Hello *, > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi, On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > Hello *, > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann > asked > me what advantages it had over module-assistant. > After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer. If you decided to package it, you must have had your

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:00 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann > > asked me what advantages it had over module-assistant. > > After some talking with upstream,

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:29:44 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > This is achieved through the installation of a script in: > > > > /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/ > > /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ > > /etc/kernel/prerm.d/ > > > > A quick search with apt-file didn't return any result. > > Is this approach

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann > > asked > > me what advantages it had over module-assistant. > > After some talking with

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt) Do you mean "apt maintainer"? TTBOMK, Michael has never been involved with dpkg maintenance; so is this implementation going to be in dpkg, or apt? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann > asked > me what advantages it had over module-assistant. > After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer. Only down side I worry about is tha

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being > > > installed cannot launch installation of other pa

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > This mail is being sent to see what Debian developers (and users) > think about > this framework: it's useless if no package uses it :) I currently use DKMS at work on some servers which run Debian. All other run RHEL, and have fully update

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 18:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > Do you actually have a working build system? Must you have a build > system on every host? I have one on a testbed yes. I have a box which has dkms, build-essential and headers installed. I import the driver source tarball, run dkms mkde

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Note, we would also need to ensure that alien does a good job > with DKMS RPMs. dkms can build deb packages. They need dkms to be installed too (so you need it installed on all your servers, not just on the build machine), but it works fine

Re: Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

This is achieved through the installation of a script in: /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ /etc/kernel/prerm.d/ A quick search with apt-file didn't return any result. Is this approach supported by Debian? /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/ isn't supported. I remember grub u

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > *Other* > > 5) Interoperability with different distributions. DKMS tarballs can be used on > RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu, or Debian. If there are different kernels, patches can be > included in the DKMS tarball to enable support on different kernel

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:55:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 21:44 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > You cannot install packages in a triggered script, or in whatever way > > > that will be determined

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 21:44 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > You cannot install packages in a triggered script, or in whatever way > > that will be determined from within a package itself. > > Is there any particular reason for

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:13:40 +0200, sean finney wrote: > hi, Hello Sean, > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being > > > installed cannot launch installation of other packages. > > > > Uhm, right

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 20:02 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > apt-get is able to determine the architecture he's running on, right? > > Anyways, dkms is a shells script, it could use dpkg-architecture to get the > > right string

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

hi, On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being > > installed cannot launch installation of other packages. > > Uhm, right. > I believe there could be a margin of improvement here for apt-get: > 3) the

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 20:02 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Yes, and if dkps depends on linux-headers-2.6-$subarch, that will do the > > > trick at least for

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:53PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > > > One of the issues I’m

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:02:41 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > I believe there could be a margin of improvement here for apt-get: > > > > 1) apt-get install linux-image-2.6-blabla > > 2) ...installation goes... > > 3) the postinst hoo

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always > > > > have the kerne

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always > > > > have the kernel

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being > > installed cannot launch installation of other packages. > > Uhm, right. > I believe there could be

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment > > > kernel > > > headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt. > > > > Seems just as easy (or diffiuclt) to implement with module-assist

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always > > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels? > > > > Some kind of check ins

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always > > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels? > > > > Some kind of check inside D

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels? > > Some kind of check inside DKMS? In the end, that's a Bash script, and the > Debian maintainer (i.e

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi Josselin: As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt) is implementing the idea of package groups that have sticky dependencies. This should mean that when a package gets installed, it will need to register with the package group. When a kernel with a new ABI is available, it won't be

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:17:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit : > > > > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment > > > > kernel headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt. > > > > > > S

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi David: I'll add on the Ubuntu kernel team here to get some comments on this postinstall hook functionality and it's origins. Regards David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > >> If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a DKMS control file: >> >> 1) It

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi Cohen: Keep in mind, if there is a new kernel that gets installed, this will build the driver for that kernel, but nothing will be activated until you reboot. That choice is your own. Due to the kernel postinstall service, you won't even need to build the modules during the next boot prior t

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

David Paleino wrote: > Sure, but I believe Mario intended "trasparently adding modules" -- i.e. > modules you forgot to update&install would automatically be handled by DKMS on > boot. Mario, am I wrong? > Correct, the service will simply compile the modules for you. rmmod/modprobe/udev cont

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a DKMS control file: > > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment kernel > headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt. This is achieved through the ins

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:58:22 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:29:44PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > > I wonder how this can be done with zaptel. If you try to be > > > user-friendly and run '/etc/init.d/zaptel/unload' when installing > > > zaptel-modules-' it'll eventu

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:29:44PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > I wonder how this can be done with zaptel. If you try to be > > user-friendly and run '/etc/init.d/zaptel/unload' when installing > > zaptel-modules-' it'll eventually fail normally, because > > Asterisk holds /dev/zap/pseudo open,

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi, please keep also the upstream author CCed :) On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:00:14 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > I have experince mostly with the out-of-tree module Zaptel. > I'm personally happy with m-a. It works resonably well for me. Though I > appreciate the goal of cross-vendor compatibility. T

Re: RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hi, I have experince mostly with the out-of-tree module Zaptel. I'm personally happy with m-a. It works resonably well for me. Though I appreciate the goal of cross-vendor compatibility. Some comments: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > 1) It includes a kernel post

RFC: DKMS - Dynamic Kernel Module Support

Hello *, some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann asked me what advantages it had over module-assistant. After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer. (quoting mail from Mario Limonciello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, CCed) --8<-- If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in