On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Hello *,
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2]
So, what's the final status of this thread?
Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it?
I wouldn't want to drop it -- if there's no consensus or, at least, someone
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Hello *,
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2]
So, what's the final status of this thread?
Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it?
I wouldn't
So, what's the final status of this thread?
Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it?
I wouldn't want to drop it -- if there's no consensus or, at least, someone
wanting it -- and wanting to *sponsor* it, or someone that will actually
*use* it, I believe I'll put that on my
On mer, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Should I continue working on DKMS for Debian, or is that all wasted
time?
Go ahead, it *will* be useful, and isn't intended to replace
module-assistant anyway. It may have some problems, but they will be
identified, reported and fixed.
Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 07:54 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
On dim, 2008-09-14 at 22:36 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
(DKMS actually moves the old version out of the way and
moves the new version into its place. I think we might want to modify
that behaviour in Debian, perhaps
Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit :
And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is that
you can not install two of them on your system if you have two different
kernel variants.
Then it is a bug in the Debian dkms package, and one that should
On dim, 2008-09-14 at 09:15 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit :
And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is
that
you can not install two of them on your system if you have two
different
kernel variants.
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
snip
That may be true for an out-of-tree modules. However, let's recall that
Fedora ships with Latest kernel and Debian (Stable) doesn't. Hence
Debian should be more concerened with backporting.
Right now Debian does have the latest
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 01:54:43AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 00:44 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
- Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
obvious way of integrity
On sam, 2008-09-13 at 00:21 +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
No. You only need dkms.
Hmm... How does dkms build the modules for a build kernel, then?
Surely a compiler and linker must be needed, right?
You build the module on the build host, then put it on a .deb package.
You install this
On sam, 2008-09-13 at 06:21 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Can you do that if you generate modules for both 2.6.26-1-686 and
2.6.26-1-vserver-686 ?
Will tell you on monday.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
OoO En cette matinée ensoleillée du samedi 13 septembre 2008, vers
09:08, Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait :
Do not assume everybody maintaining the system know of dkms (or of m-a
or such). Knowledge of debsums or equivalent should be assumed from
anybody maintaining a Debian
Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]:
- Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
obvious way of integrity protection.
Dpkg is not tripwire. If you think you can rely on dpkg
So, DKMS is being run after the installation of a kernel. Am I right?
Yes.
Btw, is all this documented anywhere?
I guess it isn't.
Kindly,
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 09:32:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]:
- Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
obvious way of integrity
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 18:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Do you actually have a working build system? Must you have a build
system on every host?
I have one on a testbed yes. I have a box which has dkms,
build-essential and headers installed. I import the driver source
tarball, run dkms mkdeb,
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
This mail is being sent to see what Debian developers (and users)
think about
this framework: it's useless if no package uses it :)
I currently use DKMS at work on some servers which run Debian. All other
run RHEL, and have fully updated
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
installed cannot launch installation of other packages.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann daniel
asked
me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer.
Only down side I worry about is
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt)
Do you mean apt maintainer? TTBOMK, Michael has never been involved with
dpkg maintenance; so is this implementation going to be in dpkg, or apt?
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann daniel
asked
me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
After some talking with
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:00 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann daniel
asked me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
After some talking with upstream,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann daniel
asked
me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
After some talking with
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not
acceptable.
Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we won’t
ship binary packages for.
As long as the .ko files are correctly
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
*Usability Maintainability*
3) You don't need to know much about what you are doing in order to install a
package that uses DKMS. If you look at the kqemu-source package in Ubuntu,
the
moment you install it, it builds
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Furthermore, m-a is part of the package management system, which is a
good thing. If my repository contains -modules packages, they will bo
automatically upgraded upon a new version of the module.
Building packages should be the norm.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:13:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not
acceptable.
Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we won’t
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:04PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name
installed on the system. dpkg does not like this. Hence kernel modules
deb packages have the
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:32:07 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:04PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name
installed on the system. dpkg does
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 10:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
IMO a solution that install modules manually (i.e. without dpkg) is not
acceptable.
Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we won’t
ship binary
Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb of those modules and
installing them?
I think this is going out of the scope of dpkg to be able to recursively
install packages that it was not even asked to install.
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Upon initial inspection of the dkms script, it seems to generate
deb packages whose name does not not include $KVERS . But I didn't test
it.
This is correct, because you don't want to have multiple DKMS packages
installed to support many versions of the kernel module.
On ven, 2008-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we
won’t
ship binary packages for.
Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb of those modules
and
installing them?
That's exactly what “dkms mkdeb” does.
On ven, 2008-09-12 at 11:32 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
This is a major bug IMHO. It means that at least for i386
dkms-generated
debs cannot be put in repositories. Thus you require a build
environment
on the target host.
No. You only need dkms.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description:
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On ven, 2008-09-12 at 11:32 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
This is a major bug IMHO. It means that at least for i386
dkms-generated
debs cannot be put in repositories. Thus you require a build
environment
on the target host.
No. You only need dkms.
David Paleino wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Furthermore, m-a is part of the package management system, which is a
good thing.
Indeed, as reasoned below
[...]
Building packages should be the norm. Having many files under /lib that
cannot be tracked by
Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 00:44 +0200, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
- Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
obvious way of integrity protection.
Dpkg is not tripwire. If you think you can rely on dpkg
Hi,
I have experince mostly with the out-of-tree module Zaptel.
I'm personally happy with m-a. It works resonably well for me. Though I
appreciate the goal of cross-vendor compatibility.
Some comments:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
1) It includes a kernel
Hi,
please keep also the upstream author CCed :)
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:00:14 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
I have experince mostly with the out-of-tree module Zaptel.
I'm personally happy with m-a. It works resonably well for me. Though I
appreciate the goal of cross-vendor compatibility.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:29:44PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
I wonder how this can be done with zaptel. If you try to be
user-friendly and run '/etc/init.d/zaptel/unload' when installing
zaptel-modules-current-kernel' it'll eventually fail normally, because
Asterisk holds
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:58:22 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:29:44PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
I wonder how this can be done with zaptel. If you try to be
user-friendly and run '/etc/init.d/zaptel/unload' when installing
zaptel-modules-current-kernel' it'll
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a DKMS control file:
1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment kernel
headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt.
This is achieved through the
David Paleino wrote:
Sure, but I believe Mario intended trasparently adding modules -- i.e.
modules you forgot to updateinstall would automatically be handled by DKMS on
boot. Mario, am I wrong?
Correct, the service will simply compile the modules for you.
rmmod/modprobe/udev control of
Hi Cohen:
Keep in mind, if there is a new kernel that gets installed, this will
build the driver for that kernel, but nothing will be activated until
you reboot. That choice is your own. Due to the kernel postinstall
service, you won't even need to build the modules during the next boot
prior
Hi David:
I'll add on the Ubuntu kernel team here to get some comments on this
postinstall hook functionality and it's origins.
Regards
David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a DKMS control file:
1) It
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:17:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment
kernel headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt.
Seems just as
Hi Josselin:
As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt) is implementing the
idea of package groups that have sticky dependencies. This should mean
that when a package gets installed, it will need to register with the
package group. When a kernel with a new ABI is available, it won't be
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
Some kind of check inside DKMS? In the end, that's a Bash script, and the
Debian maintainer (i.e. me,
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
Some kind of check inside DKMS? In
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
Some kind of check inside DKMS?
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment
kernel
headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt.
Seems just as easy (or diffiuclt) to implement with module-assistant,
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
installed cannot launch installation of other packages.
Uhm, right.
I believe there could be a
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
have the kernel headers
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
have the kernel headers
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:02:41 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
I believe there could be a margin of improvement here for apt-get:
1) apt-get install linux-image-2.6-blabla
2) ...installation goes...
3) the postinst hook sets an
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:53PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
One of the issues I’m wondering
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 20:02 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Yes, and if dkps depends on linux-headers-2.6-$subarch, that will do the
trick at least for the
hi,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
installed cannot launch installation of other packages.
Uhm, right.
I believe there could be a margin of improvement here for apt-get:
snip
3) the
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 20:02 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
apt-get is able to determine the architecture he's running on, right?
Anyways, dkms is a shells script, it could use dpkg-architecture to get the
right string to
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:13:40 +0200, sean finney wrote:
hi,
Hello Sean,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:35PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
installed cannot launch installation of other packages.
Uhm, right.
I
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 21:44 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You cannot install packages in a triggered script, or in whatever way
that will be determined from within a package itself.
Is there any particular reason for this?
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:55:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 21:44 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You cannot install packages in a triggered script, or in whatever way
that will be determined from
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
*Other*
5) Interoperability with different distributions. DKMS tarballs can be used on
RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu, or Debian. If there are different kernels, patches can be
included in the DKMS tarball to enable support on different kernel
This is achieved through the installation of a script in:
/etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/
/etc/kernel/prerm.d/
A quick search with apt-file didn't return any result.
Is this approach supported by Debian?
/etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/ isn't supported.
I remember grub
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Note, we would also need to ensure that alien does a good job
with DKMS RPMs.
dkms can build deb packages. They need dkms to be installed too (so you
need it installed on all your servers, not just on the build machine),
but it works fine.
65 matches
Mail list logo
