On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 04:21:57PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> dkms

> Cons)
> a. Its different from how you are currently using
> b. It is yet another way of maintaining kernels.
> c. You have to use a naming convention to say that dkms whatever means
> a kernel module.

The real con for security relevant systems is the need for existence
of build tools (compiler, binutils) on client systems. And you don't
have cryptocraphic security of a central distributed binary
package. You also depend on the client's environment, e.g. if a
scientist is testing gcc5 of rawhide on his system, the kernel modules
would evetually get built by the wrong environment.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net