On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:07:34PM +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-04-13 15:44, Ike Devolder wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:05:36PM +0200, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Ike Devolder <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> To get this discussion back on the right track I'm going to build the > >>> binary modules for virtualbox. Sébastien and myself already discussed > >>> what will be done so relatively soon those binary modules will be back. > >>> > >>> My plan is now to provide the virtualbox modules for -arch -lts and > >>> -zen. I think -grsec will be the exception since there are probably > >>> protections in there that will block some modules to even build. > >>> > >>> And when everyone is happy again we probaly should proceed to provide > >>> dkms for all out-of-tree modules alongside the binary modules. That > >>> would benefit everyone and offer the greatest amount of choice. People > >>> using custom kernels can use dkms and have everything working that way > >>> and people using one of the kernels available in the repo's can choose > >>> if they want dkms or binary. Everyone wins. > >> > >> Please don't add modules for -zen to the repos. They create a maintenance > >> burden I don't want to support. Let -zen users use DKMS; they never had any > >> prebuilt modules anyway. > > > > That makes it easier for me. So we stick to binary modules for [core] > > kernels and the rest does dkms as a middle way. > > > > Let's wait for Andreas opinion on this, but I think that binary modules > for -lts are unnecessary. I always used this kernel for servers (where I > don't really care about Virtualbox or Nvidia…) and sometimes a fallback > if -ARCH is broken. > > Bartłomiej >
So after 2 or 3 mails we divert further from what I presumed was a sort
of consensus. Could we just take this to a vote or something because
this sort of impasse will only hurt the users.
1. vote for binary modules
- -ARCH
- [core]
- other?
2. vote for dkms
- all out-of-tree modules provide dkms
- dkms if the maintainer of the module is willing to do it
- no dkms (no longer an option I think)
proposal flow for kernel + binary module updates
- use separate repo [kernel-update{-testing,-staging}]
- announcement to the module maintainers there is an update for a kernel
- module maintainers build and push the packages in the respective repo
- kernel maintainer can move kernel + modules in the main repo
--
Ike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
