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

Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
Tue Mar 29 13:02:27 UTC 2005

wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) writes:

>> 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.
> For corner cases like vservers or buildroots, we should have a
> kernel-999 fake package.

It will give only trouble... you will need yet more special magic in
the depsolver to differ between the regular kernel packages and
faked ones.  A simple and better solution would be the removal of
any exception (e.g. implicit and unoverridable 'installonlypkg' for
'kernel') or other automatism (e.g. guessing of repo- or cachedir)
in the depsolver.  Such paternalism will strike back -- at least
with vservers or buildroots.

Instead of, provide reasonable defaults (e.g. write 'installonlypkg =
kernel' in the shipped yum.conf) which can be overridden by the user.

> It wont ever change.  Simple.

What is, when next xorg-x11 requires kernel-drm >= 4.4.0?


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list