[Pkg-dkms-maint] Bug#586725: Bug#586725: closed by Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert at gmail.com> (re: dkms attempts to install modules in wrong order)

[Michael Gilbert]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:50:01 -0700 Jan Muszynski wrote:

> What you show is virtualbox-ose. Compare to PUEL. And no, you can't
> say it's a bug in the PUEL implementation. Note that when you run
> /etc/init.d/vboxdrv setup it:
> 1) Does use dkms if it's available
> 2) Explicitly processes the drivers in order
> Anyway:
> 
> ls /var/lib/dkms
> dkms_dbversion  nvidia  vboxdrv  vboxnetadp  vboxnetflt
> 
> apt-show-versions -a virtualbox-3.2
> virtualbox-3.2 3.2.8-64453~Debian~lenny install ok installed
> virtualbox-3.2 3.2.8-64453~Debian~lenny lenny download.virtualbox.org
> No testing version
> No unstable version
> virtualbox-3.2/lenny uptodate 3.2.8-64453~Debian~lenny
> 
> 
> The issue that I originally filed this on obviously isn't critical.
> For my own purposes I can easily correct this. The general issue
> remains though. What order should the various dkms modules get
> compiled in? I think the only logical order is sorted alpha, since if
> there are modules with inter-related dependencies that would be what
> they logically would use. For other, standalone, modules the order
> doesn't matter so it's no harm no foul.
> 
> Bottom line it's a simple change and I don't see how it could possibly
> hurt anything, so I'm unable to understand the resistance/reluctance
> to implement it.

yes, your suggested change is simple; however, it doesn't generalize
since module names won't necessarily be alphabetical. 

however, the core problem here is that the PUEL (Personal Use Evaluation
License) version of virtualbox is not provided by debian, and thus we
can't directly support it.  for the bugs you find in that, you need to
submit reports to the upstream bug system directly.

thanks,
mike