Jurij Smakov wrote: > Hi, > > It is pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the need for the official > packaging policy for the out-of-tree kernel modules is long overdue. As > mentioned on the wiki page dedicated to it [0], the current situation is > a mess. I would like to call for a formal discussion, which will > eventually lead to the formulation of such policy. As a first step I > propose to just throw the ideas around and figure out what we want the > module infra- stracture to be capable of. Then, we can discuss technical > aspects of it, and prepare a draft policy. > > Below are the things I would like to see implemented in module building > infrastructure. Note that I do not maintain any module packages myself, > so my opinions and proposals might be naive in some aspects, so feel > free to correct. > > * Unified way to build the modules. I think module-assistant is the > sanest way to implement it in a reasonable time frame.
Agreed. M-a has documentation that describes how to package your third party module. We should also make it policy that module source packages should simply create <modname>-source; it should have no binary modules created. Other stuff should take care of that. That "other stuff" is what I'm interested in, at this point; waldi claims to be working on stuff[0]. Waldi, can you please expand upon that? It would be nice to automate binary module package creation when a new kernel is released. The last I heard, this was planned by making the buildds automatically rebuild packages. If that is the case, who will be handling the source packages for those binary module packages? > > * Robustness. Packaged kernel modules *must* build against official > kernel headers packages. I am aware of at least one module (lirc), which > requires additional header files which we currently do not ship in > linux-headers. That's probably broken since such modules are not using > the publicly exported kernel API, so it's probably fair to require that > they either get fixed or include necessary files in the module source > package. Our policy on this has always been that they should simply include the necessary files in the module source package. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00801.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]