[2016-03-15 10:06:22 +1000] Allan McRae: > On 14/03/16 09:07, Allan McRae wrote: > > On 13/03/16 00:52, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > >> Please note that as an ideal target, I would have all our kernel modules > >> available via dkms _and_ via prebuilt modules for each kernel flavor we > >> provide. I read on the dev IRC that few modules could only be shipped from > >> sources. Not sure of that btw. > >> > >> For example, we could, for simplicity says that we provide pre-built > >> modules > >> only for the main kernel and dkms for all others kernels. > >> > >> What I would like is a team consensus/decision on how we handle kernel oot > >> modules not complains directed on virtualbox only. > > > > > > I vote for binary modules for all kernels in [core] and dkms versions. > > Kernels outside of [core] can have binary modules provided at the > > maintainer's choice. > > > > We are going to need more opinions here to build a consensus...
To me the issue is people pushing new kernels to the repos but not being able to provide the same level of support that we have for mainline. Offloading out-of-tree module rebuilds to end users instead of doing it ourselves is clearly not the right solution. So I say: remove each non-mainline kernel of which the maintainer is unwilling to support the corresponding out-of-tree modules. After all, as Allan points out, rebuilding them is a simple script job... Cheers. -- Gaetan
