On 07/03/2013 12:50 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:26:38PM +0000, "Jóhann B.
> This indicates that we should not be shipping dkms et all so does
> anyone know anything about the current status on this in the working
DKMS is a framework for rebuilding modules when a new kernel is
installed. It is primarily targeted at enterprise distributions. If
someone wants to package and maintain it for Fedora, then I guess that's
a thing they can do.
I would have thought the kernel community frowned making it available
for end user system.
> What our ( project ) status is in this?
Fedora the project doesn't have any status in DKMS at all.
Meant to say stance not status ;)
> What the way forward is supposed to be?
Fedora's approach is to get drivers upstream and they'll naturally get
picked up when we rebase. We don't provide or ship any pre-built
out-of-tree modules, nor do we support dkms, kmods, or any of the other
module building frameworks from a kernel perspective. Those are
supported by the additional persons or repositories that provide them.
Interesting it comes logically to me that we should have aligned
ourselves with opensuse and the working group stance and only make it
available as an build service to provide developer build of backported
modules, or modules that are on their way into mainline for testing
purposes only you know assist those that are willing to go through steps
necessary to making it into mainline ( while doing the opposite for
those that dont as in making it harder since they would have to carry
dkms themselves those usually have questionable license anyway )
In anycase FESCO did not even bother looking into the unit  before
allowing dkms to be enabled by default ( that unit will never work in
it's current shape and obviously was not even tested before being asked
to be enabled by default ) so I would not act surprised when dkms bugs
or 3rd party modules don't build correctly get accidental misfiled
against the kernel.