On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:13:07 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 00:44 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:43:23PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>[...]
>> > > With m-a it was and is possible to creat
Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 00:13 +, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 00:44 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > As others have said in this thread (and from my experience too), you
> > can't use dkms mkdeb to build and install separate packages for two
> > kernel versions but same mo
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 00:44 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:43:23PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
[...]
> > > With m-a it was and is possible to create nice debian packages for
> > > custom modules which can be in
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:43:23PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
> > > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> > > it is stil
2011/2/14 Marc Haber :
> That would be an acceptable workaround. Is there any way to prevent
> dkms from trying to build modules for the currently running kernel
> when module sources are installed (which is bound to fail in my build
> chroot)?
As far as I can see, it wouldn't be a problem.
Patric
Am 14.02.2011 17:04, schrieb Marc Haber:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:43:23 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
it
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:12:48 +0100, Iustin Pop
wrote:
>With my sysadmin hat on, compilation on servers is a *very* big no-no,
>so if mkdeb doesn't work or if it doesn't provide nice modules, then m-a
>should stay in.
+1
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy cop
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:43:23 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>> Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
>> > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
>> > it is still necessary to support mo
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:29:38AM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
[...]
> It's like having to install a package with "pear" because horde
> upgrade scripts once again requires a module that is not packaged
> in Debian (which was the case for Lenny and is also the case for
> Squeeze :-( ). Can those
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
> > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> > it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
> > dkms is IMHO the better system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
Am So den 13. Feb 2011 um 23:21 schrieb Patrick Matthäi:
> since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
> dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two diff
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:00:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:52:22 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> > > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> > > it is still nec
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 00:12 +0100, Iustin Pop a écrit :
> With my sysadmin hat on, compilation on servers is a *very* big no-no,
> so if mkdeb doesn't work or if it doesn't provide nice modules, then m-a
> should stay in.
Regardless, there should be a way to provide the modules without
insta
Zitat von Patrick Matthäi :
I know that right now, when backporting stuff at work, we have to drop
the DKMS stuff and write our own packaging since DKMS doesn't play
nicely with multiple kernel versions, embedding the kernel *and* package
version in the final module version, etc. Things might hav
Am 14.02.2011 00:12, schrieb Iustin Pop:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:00:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:52:22 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 06:00:10PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:52:22 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> > > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> > > it is still nec
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:52:22 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> > since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> > it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
> > dkms is IMHO the better system and
Am 13.02.2011 23:52, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
>> since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
>> it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
>> dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 23:21 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
> it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
> dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two different systems for
> kernel modules is a bit bloated.
Wit
Am 13.02.2011 23:39, schrieb Cyril Brulebois:
> That said, I'm no longer interested in maintaining m-a (lack of time
> is one thing, lack of interest is another, “upstream first” yet
> another).
Putting my fglrx maintainer hat on, I am also no longer interested in
supporting m-a, putting my server
Patrick Matthäi (13/02/2011):
> since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking
> myself, if it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
>
> dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two different systems
> for kernel modules is a bit bloated.
>
> I think there should b
Hello folk,
since we have got a stable release with dkms now, I am asking myself, if
it is still necessary to support module-assistant.
dkms is IMHO the better system and maintaining two different systems for
kernel modules is a bit bloated.
I think there should be a decission for wheezy, how we
22 matches
Mail list logo
