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

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:09:28PM -0800, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > About upgrade functionality, I see the FC1 up2date has
> > 
> >   pkgsToInstallNotUpdate[comment]=A list of provides names or package
> >   names of packages to install not update
> >   pkgsToInstallNotUpdate=kernel;kernel-modules;
> > 
> > Ok, so this is sort of obvious.  But it may be a slight PITA: suppose
> > kernel-module-foo-1.0-1 which "Provides: kernel-modules" is built for
> > x.y-z kernel and installs modules somewhere under /lib/modules/x.y-z. 
> > Then, we discover a packaging bug in kernel-module-foo so it needs to be
> > rebuilt bumping the release tag, or a new upstream version surfaces. 
> > When releasing the updated package without the kernel version changed
> > meanwhile, *boom*, conflicts.
> > 
> > Suggestions how this should be handled?
> 
> I'm not sure if I follow. The current kernel module naming proposal
> (this thread) includes the full kernel version and release in the kernel
> module name. I guess up2date should update those packages ("-U"), not
> "install" ("-i") them. 
> 
> I think I'm missing something. 

No, you are right on track. There are two issues mixed here, kernel
evr vs module evr. The module should be upgradeable not installable
within its own evr dimension, while on the kernel evr it should never
be upgraded automatically.

But this never happens if you put the kernel evr into the rpm's
name. No need for any other fancy upgrade/install tricks from any
resolver.

(Unless one sets up a policy of "Don't even want to upgrade module
versions")
-- 
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/20031218/1bd420e7/attachment.sig>