Am Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:29:57 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org>:
> I did. Maxime said building modules for only linux and linux-lts is a > good compromise. The Florian said "please go that route". Lukas was > strongly in favour "of have binary modules for kernels from [core]". > > Gatean was in favour of having all kernels support binary modules. > > Hence my conclusion: > > "Binary modules are to be provided at minimum of all kernels in > [core], with preference to providing them for all supported kernels > (noting that out-of-tree modules may not work with some patched > kernels)." Building binary modules for LTS kernel is no big task and takes me 15 minutes when they break. The real work is done in the mainline vanilla kernel (tpowa and module package maintainers). I'm fine with providing binary modules as long as this is an easy task for me to keep them building. I see dkms more something for custom kernels and such stuff. I see no need to have this in core or extra repo. There's no real advantage for the user experience over binary modules. Community repo would be fine for users who prefer to play with dkms stuff if not AUR. -Andy
pgpVDM5_Xmt9H.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
