[ATrpms-devel] dkms x kmdls (was: CGAL FC6)

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

> > Changing the subject again, what is your opinion about dkms approach.
> > I read in the Freshrpms list that Mathias and Dag seems to approve it.
> >
> > Despite the fact I do not like anything from Dell, it seems to me that
> > forcing to have a compiler in the computer is not the best solution.
>
> Indeed. The dkms author once discussed this on this list and we
> considered merging the kmdl and dkms approaches. We found out that
> they already did the same thing only that kmdl specialized in producing
> packages while dkms specialized in custom kernel builds.
>
> At that time dkms wouldn't offer anything more than kmdls can, but
> time has passed since and both kmdl and dkms evolved further. Do you
> see any benefits of today's dkms over today's kmdls?


No. kmdls are pre-compiled while dkms are compiled during installation.

I think that for people with customized kernels, dkms is better (perfect for
Dell). Also, it simplifies the work of the packager because he does not need
to generate a lot of different kmdl versions.

On the other hand, for an ordinary user with official and updated kernels,
kmdls are much simpler. Furthermore, certain servers to be really secure
should not have any compiler. If something goes wrong, I think it is
difficult for a user to debug a dkms module installation.

>From my point of view, I really prefer using kmdls.

/Paulo Roma.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20061108/c012595d/attachment.html