Re: [arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

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  
>> 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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[arch-dev-public] Away from 14 April till 28 April

[Jelle van der Waa]

I'll be from 14 till 28 April vacation without my laptop in Japan.

Feel free to update my out of date packages.

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Ike Devolder]

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  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.

-- 
Ike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Jan Alexander Steffens]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Ike Devolder  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.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Consensus: DKMS modules

[Ike Devolder]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:06:22AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 14/03/16 09:07, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 13/03/16 00:52, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> >> Please note that as an ideal target, I would have all our kernel modules
> >> available via dkms _and_ via prebuilt modules for each kernel flavor we
> >> provide. I read on the dev IRC that few modules could only be shipped from
> >> sources. Not sure of that btw.
> >>
> >> For example, we could, for simplicity says that we provide pre-built 
> >> modules
> >> only for the main kernel and dkms for all others kernels.
> >>
> >> What I would like is a team consensus/decision on how we handle kernel oot
> >> modules not complains directed on virtualbox only.
> > 
> > 
> > I vote for binary modules for all kernels in [core] and dkms versions.
> > Kernels outside of [core] can have binary modules provided at the
> > maintainer's choice.
> > 
> 
> We are going to need more opinions here to build a consensus...
> 
> A

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.

-- 
Ike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature