fabled,

I wonder if we really need the dahdi-linux dependency for dahdi-tools.
The problem i think we might get is that the kernel modules are on the
readonly modloop loopback, not registered in apk database.

Not sure, but also in a vserver guest enviroment, we will not be able to
load the kernel modules (must be done by the host) but it might be
possible to give access to dahdi devices in the guest.

Other situations might be when users build their own kernel and have the
dahdi drivers in kernel rather than as modules or have another kernel
flavore (vanilla kernel, vserver kernel...)

Point is, we probably dont want to have kernel modules as dependencies
for the userland tools.

Also, i wonder if we maybe should rename the dahdi-linux package to
dahdi-linux-grsec. We might want dahdi modules for other kernel flavors.

-nc



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---

On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 20:08 +0200, Timo Teräs wrote:
> Natanael Copa wrote:
> > I wonder if we really need the dahdi-linux dependency for dahdi-tools.
> > The problem i think we might get is that the kernel modules are on the
> > readonly modloop loopback, not registered in apk database.
> > 
> > Not sure, but also in a vserver guest enviroment, we will not be able to
> > load the kernel modules (must be done by the host) but it might be
> > possible to give access to dahdi devices in the guest.
> > 
> > Other situations might be when users build their own kernel and have the
> > dahdi drivers in kernel rather than as modules or have another kernel
> > flavore (vanilla kernel, vserver kernel...)
> > 
> > Point is, we probably dont want to have kernel modules as dependencies
> > for the userland tools.
> > 
> > Also, i wonder if we maybe should rename the dahdi-linux package to
> > dahdi-linux-grsec. We might want dahdi modules for other kernel flavors.
> 
> It depends a bit. The dahdi-linux package contains the firmwares, there's
> a separate package for the kernel modules, that the dahdi-tools does not
> depend on. If you figure out a better way to handle the firmwares, please
> fix accordingly.

ah. i thought it was the kernel modules that was there.

isnt there a kernel option to include the firmware inside the kernel
modules? need to check that up.

Otherwise, with 1.9 users copy firwares to a /firware directory on the
config media (usb) and the contents there is copied to /lib/firmware
during boot.

need to think more how to deal with firmwares.

> 
> - Timo



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---

Natanael Copa wrote:
> I wonder if we really need the dahdi-linux dependency for dahdi-tools.
> The problem i think we might get is that the kernel modules are on the
> readonly modloop loopback, not registered in apk database.
> 
> Not sure, but also in a vserver guest enviroment, we will not be able to
> load the kernel modules (must be done by the host) but it might be
> possible to give access to dahdi devices in the guest.
> 
> Other situations might be when users build their own kernel and have the
> dahdi drivers in kernel rather than as modules or have another kernel
> flavore (vanilla kernel, vserver kernel...)
> 
> Point is, we probably dont want to have kernel modules as dependencies
> for the userland tools.
> 
> Also, i wonder if we maybe should rename the dahdi-linux package to
> dahdi-linux-grsec. We might want dahdi modules for other kernel flavors.

It depends a bit. The dahdi-linux package contains the firmwares, there's
a separate package for the kernel modules, that the dahdi-tools does not
depend on. If you figure out a better way to handle the firmwares, please
fix accordingly.

- Timo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---