Andreas Jaeger schrieb: > So, should I change the pattern? Let's not hurry. ;-)
> I can make kernel-debug completely > optional... Maybe. That might be an option for other reasons as well - I tend to find a pattern changing the default kernel rather obtrusive and maybe surprising, because not all KMPs are available for kernel-debug. The user might end up with effects (missing modules...) that he did not expect. On the other hand, I'd like to hear more opinions of people who will use this pattern for actual development purposes and not just building an external module. How much sense does the pattern make without kernel-debug being installed by default? Some brainstorming why this discussion started: There was a request to simplify the way of getting a build environment for external modules (3D gfx drivers in particular). This request is legitimate. There are multiple proposed solutions: 1) Advise the user to install packages gcc, make and kernel-source individually. Advantage: Is simple, will always work for everyone under any circumstances, is portable across all earlier and future openSUSE distributions and even foreign distributions, does not introduce any avoidable overhead on the user's machine. => Easy to support. Disadvantage: Some manual intervention needed. 2) Change package kernel-source to have a soft or hard requirement to gcc and make. Advantage: Is simple. Disadvantage: Significant change compared to earlier SUSE releases, a soft requirement will not work with other package managers than zypp. 3) Advise the user to install the kernel development pattern. Advantage: Is simple. Disadvantage: Will introduce overhead on the users machine - packages which clearly belong into this pattern, but are not needed for external module builds; will change the default kernel. 4) Create a new pattern that includes just the bare minimum needed to build external modules. Advantage: ? Disadvantage: Bloats the already impressive number of patterns even further. 5) Reduce the kernel development pattern to make kernel-debug optional. Advantage: Avoids the default kernel switch (see 3), maybe desirable even independently of this issue. Disadvantage: Will still introduce other packages than kernel-debug that are not needed for external module builds either; might be perceived as degrading functionality of this pattern; first negative feedback from an actual kernel developer already there. I'd go for either 1), 2) or 5), based on more opinions from different people. >From a user's perspective, a one-click solutions is desirable, but I wouldn't call it something that "must" be done. Sticking to 1) is not catastrophic if a better and universally acceptable solution is not found. Andreas Hanke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
