Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

snowhog · 2016-02-25 02:11:29

Ref: https://www.mail-archive.com/arch-commi … 51561.html

Package dkms was just upgraded on my installation. The following message was provided by the upgrade:

===> dkms systemd startup service has been removed
===> modules building is now handled by alpm hooks at install time
===> startup modules loading must be done via modules-load.d

Do I need to do anything?

Scimmia · 2016-02-25 02:27:23

How would you interpret that message?

snowhog · 2016-02-25 02:48:27

That startup services for dkms has been removed from systemd, and that modules to be loaded at startup are now done via modules-load.d. Being new to Arch, I don't know what that means to me.

/etc/modules-load.d/ has no files. IF, in order for dkms modules to be rebuilt when kernel updates come in I have to do something, I want to know what that something is. To clarify, Arch is installed in an Oracle Virtualbox VM, so dkms and linux-headers were installed.

Scimmia · 2016-02-25 02:54:21

I'm asking you to think through the message instead of asking for someone to do the thinking for you. It's all pretty clear. If you have a specific question, we can point you in the right direction.

snowhog · 2016-02-25 03:39:00

I am asking in the Newbie Corner. I wouldn't ask a question if I didn't believe I had to. Providing a cryptic answer to a specific question is not the way to endear someone coming to Arch. It's almost as if, based on my interpretation of your 'answer', that you are telling me, 'Hey, we had to go through the pain, so why should you be any different?'

I fully expect to be berated for my response -- I'm not being respectful, or that's what will be implied, directly or by action.

I wanted to give Arch a try. I'm willing to 'do the work', and do. I'm using official Arch wiki's. I joined the Forum. But, when I run into an issue, I expect to be able to ask questions and to receive help for those questions. If that isn't how Arch works, okay, then Arch isn't for me, and the Arch community, whether it believes so or not, will be worse off for my not being here.

fukawi2 · 2016-02-25 03:58:13

Both of you please refresh your memory on this: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fo … ther_users

snowhog wrote:

I expect to be able to ask questions and to receive help for those questions.

While I concede you haven't received the most productive of response thus far, stating expectations like that is unreasonable. Arch is created, maintained and supported by volunteers. No-one "owes" you support, however there are plenty of people willing to assist if and when they can.

Scimmia wrote:

It's all pretty clear. If you have a specific question, we can point you in the right direction.

I have to agree with snowhog; I don't find the message very clear. Perhaps to someone much more familiar with dkms and kernel stuff it is, but as a "dumb user" I'm not sure what I should do with that information. It would be helpful if you could offer a little more information?

Last edited by fukawi2 (2016-02-25 03:58:35)

ewaller · 2016-02-25 04:16:07

My personal take on the messages and your assertion that you have not configured an modules to load is that nothing needs be done.

Scimmia · 2016-02-25 04:23:58

fukawi2 wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
It's all pretty clear. If you have a specific question, we can point you in the right direction.
I have to agree with snowhog; I don't find the message very clear. Perhaps to someone much more familiar with dkms and kernel stuff it is, but as a "dumb user" I'm not sure what I should do with that information. It would be helpful if you could offer a little more information?

As I said, I'd help with specific questions. Posting up a message and essentially saying "I don't want to read this, someone tell me what to do" isn't a specific question.

tancrackers · 2016-02-25 06:21:23

I did some investigation, and found that dkms.service was removed with the new dkms update.
With the emergence of pacman hooks:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#Hooks

The dkms.service was replaced with these hook files:
/usr/share/libalpm/hooks/70-dkms-install.hook
/usr/share/libalpm/hooks/70-dkms-remove.hook

I had issues with Virtualbox, but noticed that I had to recreate this file:
/etc/modules-load.d/virtualbox.conf

In summation, snowhog's question is answered:
No, you don't need to do anything about dkms. Instead of using dkms.service (it was removed), the same feature was replaced by those hook files. All is well

Harey · 2016-02-29 08:37:57

tancrackers wrote:

No, you don't need to do anything about dkms. Instead of using dkms.service (it was removed), the same feature was replaced by those hook files. All is well

Sorry to say that, but no, it's not. If you don't have the kernel headers (package linux-headers) installed dkms bails out without any error message, the modules won't get built and the next boot spits out an error message about not being able to load the kernel modules. Solution: install the linux headers, then reinstall virtualbox-host-dkms and the modules will get built.

There should be a dependency on the kernel headers for virtualbox-host-dkms, I think. And the virtualbox wiki page should be updated in the relevant parts as well.

Greetings
Harvey

Last edited by Harey (2016-02-29 10:27:16)

ooo · 2016-02-29 12:47:31

Just wanted to clarify that I understand the change correctly:

Previously the dkms would only get rebuilt after installing the *-dkms package, and only against the currently running kernel, which is why you could use the dkms systemd service to rebuild dkms modules automatically after booting to the new kernel (or you could run dkms manually).

And now, with alpm-hooks the dkms module will be built after every kernel (or headers) package upgrade, and also for the new kernel (as long as the module is listed in modules-load.d)?

Scimmia · 2016-02-29 13:39:16

Harey wrote:

There should be a dependency on the kernel headers for virtualbox-host-dkms, I think.

It already does. The dkms package, too. Did you pay attention to what pacman told you?

Harey wrote:

And the virtualbox wiki page should be updated in the relevant parts as well.

So update it.

Harey · 2016-02-29 14:43:30

Scimmia wrote:

Harey wrote:
There should be a dependency on the kernel headers for virtualbox-host-dkms, I think.
It already does. The dkms package, too. Did you pay attention to what pacman told you?

I did. But it is an optdepend - and instead of that the kernel sources have to be present for dkms to work otherwise virtualbox will stop working after the update.

Scimmia wrote:

Harey wrote:
And the virtualbox wiki page should be updated in the relevant parts as well.
So update it.

I feel that this should be left to the one that changed the process or to someone that at least fully understands how the process is handled now. As you see in the post before, there truly is some confusion. And I am confused too. Sorry if this sounds ignorant to you, but I only wanted to point out that the statement

tancrackers wrote:

No, you don't need to do anything about dkms.

is not really true concerning the virtualbox update.

Greetings
Harvey

Scimmia · 2016-02-29 14:57:10

Harey wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
Harey wrote:
There should be a dependency on the kernel headers for virtualbox-host-dkms, I think.
It already does. The dkms package, too. Did you pay attention to what pacman told you?
I did. But it is an optdepend - and instead of that the kernel sources have to be present for dkms to work otherwise virtualbox will stop working after the update.

The kernel headers for whatever kernel you're using. An optdepend is the only sane way of handling that.

Last edited by Scimmia (2016-02-29 14:58:30)

Harey · 2016-02-29 16:19:26

Scimmia wrote:

Harey wrote:
Scimmia wrote:
It already does. The dkms package, too. Did you pay attention to what pacman told you?
I did. But it is an optdepend - and instead of that the kernel sources have to be present for dkms to work otherwise virtualbox will stop working after the update.
The kernel headers for whatever kernel you're using. An optdepend is the only sane way of handling that.

Ah, I see. So pacman is not able to detect if the kernel headers for the kernels installed are present. Maybe the update message should be more specific about that, then. Just my 2C

Harvey

Arch Linux

#1 2016-02-25 02:11:29

Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#2 2016-02-25 02:27:23

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#3 2016-02-25 02:48:27

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#4 2016-02-25 02:54:21

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#5 2016-02-25 03:39:00

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#6 2016-02-25 03:58:13

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#7 2016-02-25 04:16:07

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#8 2016-02-25 04:23:58

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#9 2016-02-25 06:21:23

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#10 2016-02-29 08:37:57

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#11 2016-02-29 12:47:31

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#12 2016-02-29 13:39:16

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#13 2016-02-29 14:43:30

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#14 2016-02-29 14:57:10

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

#15 2016-02-29 16:19:26

Re: Module loading changed due to dkms package upgrade

Board footer