Re: blcr dkms

From: Neal Becker (
Date: Thu Mar 08 2007 - 04:27:15 PST

  • Next message: Neal Becker: "Re: blcr dkms"
    On Wednesday 07 March 2007, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
    > Neal,
    >   I was not familiar with dkms, but what you describe sounds
    > interesting. I've taken just a moment to go read a little about it.
    > As currently built, you are correct that extracting the kernel source
    > from the distribution tree would leave something that would not build.
    > However, since there are 3 modules to build, we'd want a parent
    > directory anyway.  I didn't get the impression from my very brief
    > reading that dkms would "break" if we copied the entire blcr
    > distribution rather than just the module sources - but that would be
    > very sloppy.
    > While not documented anywhere, blcr's configure script does take an
    > option to determine which portions are built, though this is not
    > integrated with the RPM packaging.
    > For instance:
    >   path/to/configure --with-components=util,libcr,include
    > would build all but the kernel modules, while
    >   path/to/configure --with-components=modules
    > would build only the kernel modules.
    > So, one could install the minimum required parts of the BLCR source tree
    > for dkms and write the dkms.conf file to perform the configure with the
    > --with-components=modules flag.  One would prune parts of the source not
    > needed.  At the moment, "--with-components" doesn't cover the tests,
    > examples, sss and doc directories which are always configured, but that
    > could be changed.  It might even make sense to add a --enable-dkms so
    > that configure would require (I think) only the following directories:
    > config, cr_module, vmadump, vmadump4, blcr_imports, and include.
    > If I understand correctly, a "proper" implementation might be for the
    > BLCR .src.rpm to build as it does now, but to also build a
    > blcr-modules-VERSION-1dkms.noarch.rpm package that contains a dkms.conf
    > and the subset-sources.  My intent here is that sites w/o dkms could
    > still have a binary RPM of the kernel module, but dkms-sites could use
    > the dkms one instead.  Does that sound right?
    > If it sounds like I am on the right track, then we can probably do
    > something.  If you work on the additions to the rpm spec file for the
    > "sloppy" version that copies the entire blcr distro to /usr/src but
    > passes --with-components=modules to configure, then I'll work on
    > configure-goop to ensure that --with-components=modules requires only a
    > truly minimal subtree to be installed.
    This sounds reasonable.  I can handle rpm pretty well.  My problem is, I know 
    nothing of autoconf (and don't want to know anything about it).
    If we can build just kernel mods using --with-components, that should be a 
    good start. 
    > -Paul
    > Neal Becker wrote:
    > > I'm interested in packaging blcr as an rpm using dkms.  In order to do
    > > this, we need to separate the library build and kernel module build.  In
    > > other words, the library build would produce one rpms, and the dkms would
    > > be a package of the module source.  Installing the dkms kernel rpm would
    > > just install the source into /usr/src/blcr-xxxx.  At boot dkms would do
    > > configure, make if required.  I don't think blcr is packaged to allow
    > > this right now, since it expects to have a top-level dir above the kernel
    > > source dir where configure was run (I say that because the kernel module
    > > Makefile has a lot of refs to ../, so I'm assuming it won't work as is).
    > >
    > > Any thoughts?  Interest?

  • Next message: Neal Becker: "Re: blcr dkms"