On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/22/2010 01:59 AM, Jan Muszynski wrote: >> This shows up, on my system, when trying to build the modules for virtualbox >> (PUEL). There are 3 modules, and they need to be built in a specific order >> (the others depend on the first to build correctly). If dkms processes the >> modules in sorted sequence everything is fine. Otherwise I have to manually >> get the modules to build. Here's an example of what I mean: > > Ok, you are proposing to use 'sort', but this fixes a specific issue, > the alphabetical order doesn't necessarily matches the build order. > > Cheers, > Giuseppe.
I suspect (although can't prove) that any modules that have dependencies (as in this case) wll use alpha order, and name modules accordingly. Otherwise what would they use to determine the compile order? In most cases it's a one module build so it doesn't matter. This is restricted to multiple module compiles, that also have dependencies on each other, so the universe is (relatively) small. If you can show me a multi-module driver set that has dependencies that depend on an order other than an alpha sort I'll be happy to drop the bug and reconsider another method. But logically I think an alpha sort is the only thing that makes sense and that anyone building a dkms package that builds such modules will assume they go in sorted order. _______________________________________________ Pkg-dkms-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-dkms-maint
