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