Hi,

out-of-tree-modules are migrating to a new byzantine format called
DKMS. DKMS-"supporting"-modules cannot be built with module-assistant
any more which breaks existing setups.

Please consider modifying module-assistant so that it recognizes both
old-style module source packages and DKMS-style module source packages
and allows building both kinds in a unified way. This would be really
great.

Greetings
Marc

Marc Haber <mh+debian-bugs@zugschlus.de> (12/11/2009):

Hi,

sorry for the delay before getting back to you.

I guess people switching to DKMS are welcome to provide an upgrade
path. I'm happy to see people work on a more evolved solution than
m-a, but package maintainers switching from one to another should be
the ones supporting the upgrade path for their users, rather than the
abandoned framework's maintainer. :)

First, I've nothing against it, and I'll take patches with pleasure;
but I'm not sure I'm going to dig myself into dkms to extract stuff
they could have put into m-a in the first place to support this.

I don't exclude it, though; I'm not sure about spare time and so on.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Hi,

You mean a downgrade path. It's ten years past that we forced people
to have a build toolchain and sources on productive systems. If I
wanted to do this, I'd run Genttoo or *BSD.

Actually m-a is a very much more evolved solution that building the
modules on the target system.

Is m-a abandoned? If so, why is it still in stable?

Greetings
Marc

Marc Haber <mh+debian-bugs@zugschlus.de> (27/01/2010):

Hi,

(sorry for the lag, been busy with g-i.)

Whatever you call it. I'm not that much interested in digging out how
to support this “new byzantine format” within module-assistant. As I
said, I would welcome patches though.

You may want to talk to those folks and convince them they're doing
things wrong, then?

See its changelog. It's not full of fancy new features in every
upload, but I don't think it's buggy as hell.

Also, being abandoned has little to do with being removed from stable.

Mraw,
KiBi.