Re: kmods/dkms for gspca
On 17.10.2007 14:13, Matthias Saou wrote:
Jonathan Dieter wrote :
> Just wondering what we decided the policy was on kmods/dkms. I'd like
> to start packaging gspca (drivers for a bunch of webcams) whose the
> author hasn't been real keen on getting into the kernel.
I'd say the policy is currently unclear.
Well, you mail might bring us further -- I haven't heard anything from
you on this for a while and the last comment from you I could remember
was "let's leave kernel modules in the old repos for now"
I don't really care about the
outcome, as long as packagers are committed to their kernel modules if
they go into the repository (i.e. quickly fix breakage with recent
kernels if any).
Just a note -- In livna I took care of rebuilding and pushing all kmods
for updated kernels. That way quicker then to wait for each kmod owner
to update the package. i'm willing to continue this job if that's fine
for everyone.
Note that livna uses a slightly improved kmod version in devel that
makes things a bit easier to handle from both users and developers point
of view. If that's fine for everyone I'd like to use that for rpmfusion.
All kmods in livna-devel are already using that new style.
The approach of having both kmod and dkms packages for all kernel
modules provided might be nice in order to let end-users choose which
pain they want to deal with :-)
Sounds like the best idea for the start, so +1 from me. I'm actually
willing to help with creating kmod specs for dkms-only packages from
freshrpms. For some of the livna packages dkms addition are already
prepared as well afaik.
Cu
knurd