[Fedora-packaging] Kernel Module Packages

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Aug 19 14:50:19 UTC 2005

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:06 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:

> Great, thanks for the thoughtful example. I was talking about a prefix from 
> the LANANA provider name registry, 
> http://lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html, and I'm also aware that many 
> potential providers don't have an entry there, yet. 

You're presuming that third party entities will follow the letter of
such a proposal, rather than attempting to cram garbage in (but stay in
the spirit of the proposal). ACPI and DMA prove that conclusively

> Putting aside FUD for a second, where do you see problems querying the rpm 
> database, or in Bugzilla?

What's the bugzilla entry? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.36?
adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.37? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.38?

rpm -q adaptec-aic7xxx fails. Not only does the user need to know the
driver name, they also need to remember the vendor.

> And why do you think the number of source rpms 
> would change at all?

Source rpms are generated from %{name}. By putting changing and unique
variables in %{name}, you generate a LOT of srpms.

> > And we can certainly offer multiple packages.
> >
> > kernel-module-foo-1.2- (driver version 1.2, build 1)
> > kernel-module-foo-1.2- (driver version 1.2, build 2)
> > kernel-moudle-foo-1.3- (driver version 1.3, build 1)
> You can have multiple packets next to each other, but rpm --freshen (and other 
> tools using the same logic) won't work as expected anymore: you will always 
> end up with the most recent driver version. Sticking with the same driver 
> version by default will break.

We've fixed the tools (specifically yum) to handle this condition.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list