On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 18:12:30 CET Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 10:56:33 +0100 Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 6.0.0-6-amd64 > > > (x86_64) > > > Consult /var/lib/dkms/anbox-binder/1/build/make.log for more > > > information. > > That does not look like a module packaged in Debian ...
These kind of issues get regularly filed against the Debian kernel and it does not matter whether the dkms module is packaged in Debian or not. If the dkms module is packaged in Debian, we assign it to the specific dkms package. > > dkms fails the installation if anything it tries to build does not work. > > This must go, reassigning accordingly. > > What should dkms do instead? Out-of-tree modules break frequently on new > kernel upstream major versions, that is completely out of dkms' control. > > There are two points in time where these errors could show up: > * ) at package installation/upgrade time because building the module > failed (there is a small chance of the build succeeding ater reboot > if a badly packaged module only supports building against the > running kernel) > * ) at reboot due to a missing kernel module > > A failing module could build be 'harmless' if it's e.g. just the > soundcard driver missing (unless you depend on text-to-speech) but in > the worst case it's the root file system that is not supported... It seems fine to print (in all caps afaic) that there is an issue. But it should not cause the kernel package install/upgrade to fail. And that does seem in dkms' control afaict.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
