On jeu., 2016-04-14 at 18:54 +0200, Andreas Radke wrote: > Am Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:29:33 +0200 > schrieb Ike Devolder <[email protected]>: > > I'm for binary modules for our -ARCH main kernel pkg. I see no real > need for -lts modules but if there're a few people who find them > useful I can handle the kernel rebuilds. > > No opinion about dkms at all. DKMS could be useful if a foo-dkms pkg is > able to detect all local kernels and build required modules without > interaction. dkms packages for kernel for which we provide binary > modules doesn't provide any more comfort for the user to me. >
So far, everybody wants (or accept we need) a binary package for -arch kernel. So, I pushed a binary package for virtualbox -arch kernel modules. I hope others dkms only packages (ndiswrapper, sysdig) will also provide a binary version for the -arch kernel. This would be a step forward in a common way of providing kernel modules. Regarding binary modules for -lts,-zen,-grsec, I think we should either provides them or not. But not stay in each packager do is own choice. -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42 GPG: 0x2072D77A
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
