RFC: kernel-modules in Fedora Extras

[Andreas Bierfert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 11:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> What happens if a driver gets merged into the kernel upstream?  Or if
> davej et. al decide to put it in the Core kernel package for one reason
> or another?  Will the Core kernel package now have to have a
> Provides/Obsoletes: kmod-%{name} ?
>

Ok, maybe I am crazy and there are n+1 good,sane, and intelligent reasons
against this but:

Why not extend rpm similar to perl? Have the kernel rpm generate a list of
provides with the module names and the module version and the kernel version?
Even something like static/module could be part of this information. That would
be a cleaner solution for the deps and easier for the requires of the userland
tools. kernel-modules could then have the same provides etc.

I know what this implies but kernel modules that are not part of the upstream
kernel are indeed a special case and why not treat them like that? I really do
appreciate all the work that has been put into this issue but maybe it is time
for a more radical view on this. Changing yum and friends to compensate for the
issue that there only is so much you can do with E-V-R and Requires/Obsoletes
etc. may not prove to be the best way. When I see how many issues pop up and
even in the lead mail to this thread that not everybody even from FESCo is happy
with the current proposal that really gets me thinking.

I agree that we should find a solution as quick as possible to present something
by the time fc5 is released but maybe this is something that could be considered
in the fc6 timeframe?

Ok, most people probably won't like this idea and this is why I will shut up now
and keep quiet as usual ;)

- - Andreas

- --
Andreas Bierfert               | http://awbsworld.de      | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de     | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373         | cell: +49 172 9789968    | mail preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDwQ6DQEQyPsWM8csRAhkwAKCVLY755HFTY92I7oIO/aIpLt/GcACfXkL7
Ddpl4MAbPrYFdjATK/sPDag=
=7+rI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----