Hi, dkms is for building so shouldn't this bug be closed? If not, I'd like to hear a specific example of a driver.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but shouldn't this instead be a bug against drivers in Debian that use dkms instead of requiring a new package be created in the archive for each relevant kernel release. With pre-compiled modules there should be separate packages per architecture too. I seem to recall that Debian used to update all the main kernel modules with a relevant kernel update (though this is painful for the security and stable release teams). I guess non-free drivers need more support since some in Security said they don't support non-free, but that could be a wont-fix for those drivers if the maintainers decide they need dkms in order to support updates. dkms seems most useful for third party modules from organizations like hardware vendors who don't yet have in-tree or in-archive drivers and can't support binaries for all the relevant kernels in distributions that have dkms. Alternately, maybe the bug is a request for dkms to be an install/pre-install time requirement, but removable either by making sure it's just "recommends" for drivers, or through drivers being released as "-source" style packages that create an installation. Still, this seems like a bug for the dkms depending kernel module/driver packages. If this is the case, then maybe people want dkms installed in such a way that it doesn't autobuild on reboot, but I guess that's the same argument as services that provide tools, or that services shouldn't autostart (but they do). If dkms is required for drivers, then packages like gcc will become pseudo required again which was considered a bug with security implications. Thanks, Drew Daniels Resume: http://www.boxheap.net/ddaniels/resume.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org