On Mon, 14 May 2007, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:13:36AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2007, Mohd Irwan Jamaluddin wrote: > > > I wrote a simple howto in [1]my blog on how to mount NTFS in RHEL 5. I > > > really appreciate your comments and suggestions. > > > > > > Below are the steps, > > > > > > 1. Download fuse & ntfs-3g > > > fuse: get it from http://www.atrpms.net/dist/el5/fuse/ > > > ntfs-3g: get it from http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/packages/fuse-ntfs-3g/ > > > > Is there a reason why you do not use the fuse-package from RPMforge > > (dag.wieers.com) ? > > > > > 2. Install fuse components > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -ivh fuse-2.6.5-2_7.el5.x86_64.rpm \ > > > > fuse-kmdl-2.6.18-8.1.3.el5xen-2.6.5-2_7.el5.x86_64.rpm \ > > > > fuse-libs-2.6.5-2_7.el5.x86_64.rpm > > > > I have made a dkms-fuse package available. Granted, it does require dkms > > and a compiler to be available and is not a plug&play solution as the > > kmdl, but it doesn't have the problem that a kernel upgrade takes away > > your ntfs abilities. > > dkms has many shortcomings most importantly the fact that every build > on every system is unique, therefore potentially exhibiting per system > bugs which are harder to diagnose ("have you built your dkms with the > previous gcc or the updated one?") and users tend to ignore any > warning/errors that pop up the screen while the modules are > rebuilt. Therefore it is better to have the build process monitored by > people that know what to expect.
I know that. I opposed to dkms for a long time. But keeping up with kernel versions and architectures and the fact that functionality may be missing because modules are not made available persuaded me. dkms is really simple and the per system bugs are rather hypothetical and haven't been a problem so far. I'm not saying it can't happen but things are less complicated overall now. > Having said that there is not really a contradiction of dkms-like vs > kmdl-like solutions, e.g. on the client build mechanism vs on the > maintainer's system build mechanisms. One could have kmdls rebuild > themselves automatically like dkms does provided one has the tools > (buildchain and rpm build tools) and the src.rpm. > > Maybe worth banging our heads together and get some nice solution > making both camps happy? But probably this is not exactly on-topic on > this list. Oh, of course. My mail was simply to clarify that I provide dkms-fuse packages and the fact that I do not have any dependencies on dkms modules is evidence that I favor the diversity :) > > Overall, my intention is to have dkms packages available for all the > > drivers that I'll add support for in the future. > > > > On top of that, the dkms-fuse package also works on other distributions, > > including FC and older EL releases. > > Same goes for the fuse kmdls :) If the kernel modules are available, yes. I used to provide kernel-module-whatever packages for different kernels and archs. But the sheer volume of kernel-module packages was rather confusing to me and to users. Especially if you have to find your kernel in a list of 500 packages. dkms makes it pretty simple, and the package is named the same. For production systems, where a compiler is a no-go, dkms allows to build your own kernel module packages that you can distribute. That option one still has. Kind regards, -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
