On Tuesday 15 August 2006 09:40, David Woodhouse wrote:

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we shouldn't have an agreed method of building kernel module packages at all -- just that we shouldn't have any such packages in Core or Extras.

There _are_ relatively sane (and legal, unlike nvidia/ati stuff) cases where one might want to build a separate module -- like the NTFS modules in Livna, for example. And other 'new drivers' which aren't yet upstream. Of course you're right when you agree with me that those new drivers shouldn't be in Core or Extras -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't provide a way to package them at all.

Given that we don't want it on Core or Extras, I'm pretty happy to let random 3rd party packager do whatever they want for packaging modules. I'm not interested in dictating how they should handle this ugly hack.

Your example about ntfs is not usable w/out the userland (ntfsprogs), which nobody wants to touch due to legal reasons, and would be obsoleted by FUSE anyway where the most recent ntfs support is done entirely in userspace.

There are many more things the packaging committee can spend time worrying about. Packaging of kernel modules isn't one of them IMHO.