[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Overriding kernel modules



Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 22:40 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:

Hi,

There is a feature in FC4/FC5 kernels that allow to override modules from them by placing files in /lib/modules/$kernel_version/updates. There is also a policy in FE that prohibit replacement of a Core package. In the case of this feature, this is not exactly a replacement.


If it's a newer version of a module that already exists in the base
kernel package, then yes it is a replacement.

What I meant was it doesn't replace any file already owned by the kernel package, nor does it replace the kernel package. This is more like an extra module and this is an included feature of the Fedora provided kernel. But yes, I agree, it "taints" the kernel, the same way any out of tree kernel module (kmod-em8300 from Extras) or even in tree but not provided by Fedora (kmod-ntfs from the unamed repo) or worst a binary kernel (nvidia, ati...). Its just not the same level of tainting.


Would this be allowed in FE ?


IMHO, no.


And if yes, how should that be packaged ? This is not covered in the packaging kernel modules guidelines.


Probably because it was never intended to be allowed.

yes, I just wanted to show that I did read the guidelines.


Just for a little background, I'm interested in this feature because I use a development version (openchrome) of the X driver for via chipsets (unichrome/unichrome pro) that requires more recent drm kernel modules than the ones in upstream kernel to work to their full extend.


That's replacing Core modules, and therefore not allowed.

Please don't interpret the above to mean you can't personally do it
yourself or even provide a third party repo for this.  However, it does
not belong in Extras.

That's what I'm already doing. Actually, I was doing it by overwritting some files owned by the kernel rpm, which is plain dirty until I found out this feature. And I'm also maintaining a third party repo for this purpose, but I try to keep it as clean as possible wrt to Fedora packaging guidelines.

btw, do anyone have a suggestion on how such a package should be named ? something along the line kmod-update-drm maybe ?

And also, we haven't heard of Fedora Alternatives for sometime and it was a good idea imho, at least for some very specific niche projects. My own repo provides functionalities for unichrome based graphic chipset and replace at least xorg-x11-drv-via for FC5 and was replacing the whole xorg for FC2/3/4 as well as some other packages.

Thanks for your answers.

Regards,
Xavier


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]