I'm afraid, this is getting a bit off-topic ...
On 2012-08-06 23:28, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I'm a bit confused why that is. If I'm installing a nvidia-graphics-driver
> package that does all the magic using dkms at install time, how is that more
> sophisticated than providing pre-built module packages,
There are a few people that don't like the dkms way (to many
dependencies: compiler, kernel headers; leaves cruft around (I tried to
fix a bit of this in my dkms NMU); ) and prefer to take the
responsibility to provide their own kernel module packages for local
deployment. So with the current state a foo-dkms package is an
alternative to foo-source, but not a replacement for it.
But I think there were enough threads about this topic already, no need
to start a new one ...
> especially in the light
> that it's the only one left doing it that way?
> ("Why isn't it the same for fglrx?
unfortunately the license does not permit distribution of precompiled
kernel modules
> Where's that 3.2.0-3 module for virtualbox?")
in my private repository :-)
I have a "generic" branch of nvidia-graphics-modules.git with all the
nvidia specific bits made configurable that can be used to quickly build
module packages with module-assistant for any foo-source package (tested
with fglrx-source and virtualbox-source on i386 and amd64), if anyone is
interested, I can push this somewhere. Nice way for getting prebuilt
modules (+ corresponding meta-packages) into a local repository.
Andreas
PS: I also maintain r8168-dkms which is dkms only (and only in sid) -
primarily to get some more experience with dkms ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/502045d7.6000...@abeckmann.de
