From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:01:08 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] Added linux drivers backports project In-Reply-To: <55301BBB.4090705@mind.be> References: <1429134935-11241-1-git-send-email-petr.vorel@gmail.com> <1429134935-11241-2-git-send-email-petr.vorel@gmail.com> <55301BBB.4090705@mind.be> Message-ID: <20150417100108.46fe9fc8@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Arnout Vandecappelle, On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:29:47 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > I would say that this package fits better in the linux extensions menu. Even if > you just consider this package as a set of kernel modules, I think that from a > users perspective it fits better together with the kernel. But also, if you ever > want to add the possibility to link the backported drivers in the kernel itself > (which I believe is supported by backports), then you really need it to be a > kernel extension. > > The opinion of other developers may differ, though. While I do understand the reasoning, I'm not so sure about the conclusion. The linux extension stuff is really for things that needed to be tightly integrated with the kernel build process, because it requires patching the kernel (xenomai, rtai, etc.). Here, it is much more like lttng-modules, or linux-fusion, cryptodev-linux, ktap, sysdig and so on: a bunch of external modules that can be built with no problem as separate packages from the kernel. So I would actually tend to prefer keeping linux-backports as a package in package/, like the author did. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com