Pre-Review: Asterisk

[Jeff Pitman]

On Sunday 03 April 2005 02:05, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> There are several ways to hack around this issue. We could make each
> package have a unique name by cramming the kernel uname -r in the
> addon package name, but thats hideous. It breaks all our ownership,
> bugzilla, and CVS infrastructure.

AFAIK, ATrpms/dag, et al has been doing this successfully for awhile now 
and it works fairly well.  Pushing a native change into RPM might be 
worth the effort but you're talking FC5 before the fruit of your labors 
are evident.  Then it becomes an issue of laying down the infra for 
FC4; you'd need a backport into FC4 since it hasn't sunset yet on 
support at the time.  And that means holding out on kernel add-ons 
until FC5.

Seems to me that "ownership, bugzilla, and CVS infrastructure" is an 
easier problem to tackle. 

> We could build in a horrible workaround inside yum, but then we'd
> need to do the same for every packaging delivery system that people
> want to use (yum, apt, smart, etc).

yum/smart should focus on macro decisions such as: I upgrade 2.6.11 -> 
2.6.11.5 and I want to bring all my kernel add on modules up to date to 
the latest kernel.  Axel brought this up on the smart list and it might 
be on the roadmap.

just my 2 NT,
-- 
-jeff