[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 4/5] linux-mod-r1.eclass: make modules_process_dracut.conf.d public

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Nowa Ammerlaan posted on Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:11:06 +0100 as excerpted:

> I had really hoped to receive more comments on my earlier RFC. [...]
> I really do want to know what others think so I can
> make a better judgment on whether or not my idea is really this crazy
> and if I should just shut up about it or not (so dear reader if you have
> an opinion then please share).

So because I carried over my own already "works for me" kernel maintenance 
scripts from Mandrake when I switched in 2004 and have continued 
maintaining and using them over the decades since, I normally try to stay 
out of Gentoo kernel packaging discussion. But given both the above 
explicit invitation and that as I've read the thread a thought occurred to 
me...

First, DKMS /is/ a cross-distro standard solution.  As such, I believe in 
general it should be reasonably supported in Gentoo unless it simply 
doesn't make sense (note that "doesn't make sense" can also include the 
case of simply no one stepping up to do it, not the case here).

But, the thought that occurred to me reading the thread, was that there 
are obvious parallels between this and another very significant and 
controversial now "cross distro standard solution" (which I guess I don't 
need to name explicitly).

As there, I believe "the Gentoo approach" should (again assuming developer 
willingness to do the work, seemingly the case here) make it available as 
an additional integrated *option*, while keeping the current Gentoo option 
as well.

So I support DKMS integration /as/ /an/ /option/.

That said, in keeping with my normal policy I'll avoid comment on whether 
this specific implementation is the best way to do it, vs. something else 
(which might actually be as simple as a good dkms gentoo-wiki page, or to 
complete the parallel, may be complex enough to justify installation 
handbook integration).

(Meanwhile, in terms of my personal dkms experience, while my normal 
kernel maintenance scripts don't use it, I ran across it in an upstream 
kernel bug tracing discussion at one point and recall being rather 
confused, having to ddg it, etc.  Once I figured out what it actually was 
I had the context necessary to decide I was better off slightly modifying 
my existing approach than trying to learn something new "that probably 
made binary-distro assumptions I'd have to work around anyway".  If it was 
well integrated into Gentoo including documentation I'd have probably at 
least have heard about it, and would likely have had a much better idea 
whether and how it would mesh with my own kernel maintenance scripts.  So 
that's why, as an accepted cross-distro standard solution, I'm in favor of 
integrating it, even if I may or may not be able to personally take 
advantage of that given my otherwise independent kernel scripts solution.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman