Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
Nobody has answered so far - so what should be done? > > 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. So, what do you all think? > 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 -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgpJPinApRHUk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
