On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 02:10:44AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > 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.
Andres, can you give a rationale about why there should be no binary modules created ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
