[Fedora-packaging] questions regarding kernel-devel and kernel-smp-devel packages

Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon Mar 28 21:47:01 UTC 2005

wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) writes:

>> Currently in rawhide at the moment yum treats kernel-devel as
>> installonly but kernel-smp-devel package is treated as a normal
>> package when doing updates.  Which is the more correct befault
>> behavior?  Do we want multiple versions of kernel-devel and
>> kernel-smp-devel packages to be installed by default or do we
>> want these packages to update?
> We need the ability to install any or multiple kernel-*devel packages
> in order to build modules against any target kernel version and
> arch. Upgrade is never desired with kernel-*devel.

Never say 'never'... Although 'install' will be the right choice for a
lot of systems, there are other ones where 'upgrade' is desired (not
only for 'kernel*devel', but for 'kernel' also). E.g. for vservers it
does not make much sense to install a second kernel.

>> If we want multiple versions to install, as default behavior, do we
>> want to use a different mechanism then the package name? Like using a
>> common provides statement that yum can see and act on.. similar to how
>> kernel and kernel-module packages are sensed?
> Yes.  Modifying a list of names in yum is bad.  The packages
> themselves should tell the dep resolver "Do not upgrade me!"

Whichever solution will be applied, adding yet more black magic to the
depsolver (which can not be overridden) must be prevented.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20050328/542f5bd3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list