Nameing guideline for external kernel-modules in fedora(.us)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
Fri Dec 12 19:55:58 UTC 2003


On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:53:59PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> The kernel-driver is also mostly ready, but we're currently a bit
> undecided how the resulting package with the kernel-modules should be
> named. Also a problem: What package or files should it provide and what
> should it require? For details see
> http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=601
> 
> The fedora.us guidelines currently recommend to build a package per arch
> which contains the modules for both UP and SMP kernel. Until now all
> packages in fedora.us were AFAIK only for UP so alsa would be the first
> and some people now wonder if this decision was right. So I'd like to
> start the discussion again here -- maybe redhat employees and especially
> yum, apt and up2date programmers can give input. 

That is a very bad recommendation, please package the kernel modules
for each arch/flavour combination seperately. Just look at the kernels
themselves and copy the scheme.

> Freshrpms names the packages:
> kernel-smp-module-alsa-1.0.0-0.rc2.1.fr_2.4.22_1.2129.nptl.i686.rpm
> kernel-module-alsa-1.0.0-0.rc2.1.fr_2.4.22_1.2129.nptl.i686.rpm
> 
> atrpms names the packages:
> alsa-kmdl-smp-2.4.22-1.2129.nptl-1.0.0-rc2_17.rhfc1.at.i686.rpm
> alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-1.2129.nptl-1.0.0-rc2_17.rhfc1.at.i686.rpm

Hey, that look good ;)

> dag names them like this (no alsa-packages seen)
> kernel-module-openafs-1.2.9-0_2.4.20_19.9.dag.rh90.athlon.rpm  
> kernel-smp-module-openafs-1.2.10-0_2.4.20_20.9.dag.rh90.athlon.rpm

Don't forget the more or less authoritative packager on ALSA, which is
PlanetCCRMA:

alsa-kernel-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.caps.rhfc1.ccrma
alsa-kernel-smp-2.4.22-1.2115.nptl.caps.rhfc1.ccrma

As the "name" needs to carry the kernel version it makes sense to put
kmdl|kernel|kernel-module next to it, e.g. either (omitting
pseudohyphens for clarity)

I  <kmdl-prefix><kernel release version><foo>-<foover>-<foorel>
or
II <foo><kmdl-prefix><kernel release version>-<foover>-<foorel>

I prefer (II) mainly because it makes sorting packages easier, and
visually presents the module name first, but this is simply taste.

Next I prefer shorter "kmdl"-tags, as the longer "kernel-module"
strings tend to make rpm's CLI output (as well as apt's and yum's)
unreadable without providing more information.

But the basic ingrediends are:
o keep the kernel version/release info in the rpm name.
o a separate package for each arch/flavour combination.
o set up strict dependencies to the required kernel. Sound easier than
  it is, because RH provided kernels are sometimes indistinguishable
  from rpm's POV. There is a workaround at ATrpms for that (see the
  strictdep pseudo kernel rpms).

HTH
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031212/81276f44/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list