(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
There is a 'debian way' of making packages for kernel modules not in the kernel tree, producing a package that depends on the kernel package you make. I used it to keep the fuse module up to date a while ago. I'll see if I can find my notes on the details if you like, but make-kpkg rings a bell. On Wednesday 11 January 2006 12:45, Denis Chapligin wrote: > Hello! > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:50AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > >>>>> "Denis" == Denis Chapligin <chollya_at_satgate.net> writes: > > > > Denis> My problem is that i'm trying to build kernels in 'debian > > Denis> way', so i have a single .deb package with kernel, some > > Denis> patches, additional modules and so on. But coda module > > Denis> requires additional work in this case and it comes to be a > > Denis> problem whan you have several dozens of servers:) So > > Denis> providing a kernel patch for coda module will make a life > > Denis> easier . > > > > But why should there be a separate patch for something that is already > > in the kernel? If the module distributed with the kernel doesn't work > > for you, let's fix it! > > But the additional kernel module is provided for every version of coda > client.... > > > >From what Jan says, I guess there's a backward compatibility problem > > > > with the old implicit-single-realm kernel code and the modern explicit > > realms code. That should be fixed by adding two build suboptions to > > build with the realms code and without, not by maintaining a separate > > patch. (Either or both modules could be built, and they would be > > named "coda-realms" and "coda-norealms".) > > The out-of-box kernel module doesn't supports realms. So i have to > compile new module manually (i.e. not during automated kernel compilation > process) and then manually copy it to all my servers. > > > This way you could (in theory) upgrade an individual client on-the-fly > > with "modprobe -r coda-norealms; modprobe coda-realms". Of course it > > probably won't work so well in practice, but at least this would mean > > every kernel would be ready for upgrade simply by switching modules. > > There could be a lot of problems with versioning and so on. But sounds > good :)Received on 2006-01-11 08:09:14