Skip to content

Conversation

@pulkomandy
Copy link
Contributor

This merge request changes two things:

  • Include the provided udev rules in the Debian package
  • When installing the package, load the module, and make sure it is loaded at boot as well. Since this module does not correspond to actual hardware, it otherwise needs to be loaded manually.

@stappersg
Copy link
Collaborator

(Sorry for the late response)

The two commits in this merge request should be in at least two separate MRs.

@stappersg stappersg mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2024
@pulkomandy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello,

Thanks for updating this tool :)

I created a separate merge request for just the udev rules: #61

This DKMS script will be run when the package is installed.
It will run the standard DKMS build steps (compiling the module against
the current kernel version), and will additionally:

- Load the module immediately
- Configure the module to be loaded automatically at boot

This is not handled by default by DKMS, because usually, kernel modules
are associated with some hardware, and the hardware detection in the
kernel will be enough to load the module.

But, in the case of tty0tty, there is no associated hardware, and so,
the module must be explicitly loaded.
@pulkomandy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now I have removed that part from this pull request, so you can merge them independently.


DKMS_NAME=tty0tty
DKMS_PACKAGE_NAME=$DKMS_NAME-dkms
DKMS_VERSION=1.2
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This needs to be updated when/if a version 1.3 of tty0tty (orany other new version number) is released. I'm not sure if it is possible to extract this info from somewhere else, what would be considered appropriate here?

@stappersg
Copy link
Collaborator

stappersg commented Sep 16, 2024 via email

@stappersg stappersg changed the title Debian packaging improvements (udev rules, module autoloading) Debian packaging improvements (module autoloading) Sep 16, 2024
@stappersg
Copy link
Collaborator

For the record:
Some part of this merge request are good, some parts not.

It is lack of resources to merge this request and to undo the not so good parts of the MR.

@pulkomandy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello,

You requested that I split the merge request in two parts, and I already did that.

If you have other requests, please state them, because I cannot work from "there are some parts that are not good".

@stappersg
Copy link
Collaborator

stappersg commented Oct 6, 2024 via email

@stappersg
Copy link
Collaborator

For what is it worth: #69 created tag 1.3.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants