On 04/01/2010 10:20 PM, Paul McEnery wrote: > > Ben, one of the reasons that I was slow to respond to the call to > integrate ipheth into the mainline kernel is that I don't believe that > it belongs there. It's far too dependent on other bits and pieces in > order to function. It requires the user space usbmuxd daemon - and the > phone must be paired before it will function. It may well be easy to > add a utility for paring devices to the libimobiledevice-utils
Hi Paul, While I respect your opinion, I'm not with you at all. Hardware drivers *do* belong to the kernel. Integrating into mainline is just a matter of working on it to fit to the development/coding/interface standards out there. Just think that for *every* piece of hardware you need additional user-space tools other than the kernel module itself, just as with the ipheth driver, so I don't see a special case here. > Given what ipheth is, and how it works, I feel that DKMS provides a > flexible and practical way of making it available to users. Despite my > view on it, I am sure there are differing opinions - and I would like > to hear them. IMO, KDMS is just a proper way to use external modules that are not in mainline in your current system. It's just a "patch" to mask the fact that they are not in mainline, which is what I think that every kernel module should tend to. I mean, DKMS is not a fix to the fact that you need independent userspace tools (that, as I mention before, happen to be needed for *every* hardware/kernel module). In fact, althought you are compiling or integrating the module with DKMS, you *still* need usbmuxd and the pairing program. Interesting discussion here. I hope it moves forward :) Best regards, -- L. Alberto Giménez JabberID [email protected] GnuPG key ID 0x3BAABDE1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
