kernel posttrans and preun hooks for other packages

[Don Zickus]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:41AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Also from a support perspective, it becomes more complicated to support
> > kernel installs when random user scripts can cause unknown behaviour.
> 
> This has been the argument against DKMS for 5 years now.  However, in
> those 5 years, how many support calls has Red Hat taken where a
> DKMS-ified driver turned out to be the problem?  Where it wasn't
> obvious what was happening?  'dkms status' is even part of sysreport,
> and has been for at least 3 years.

I was unaware of this.  But in rhel we have been adding more support to
make it more obvious that non-rhel drivers have been installed.  Perhaps
that will help support.  Most reports I read though usually have the
statement "does it work without the 3rd-party driver".

> 
> I'd accept a change to new-kernel-package rpmposttrans() that invokes
> the DKMS script directly, as opposed to looping through a plug-in
> directory, if that makes people feel any better.  I suspect it doesn't
> though.

I would be more in favor of that provided we shipped and controled the
script.  Something an 'rpm -v' could verify that the script wasn't
maliciously changed.

> 
> Waiting on a higher-level tool to assist the support guys ask for
> 'dkms status' info may be appropriate for RHEL, but not for Fedora.

My opinion is support shouldn't have to use 'dkms status' at all, it
should be obvious that 3rd-party modules are loaded (i assume 'dkms
status' just reports that as I'm not familiar with the tool).

Cheers,
Don