[Fedora-packaging] kernel-module-proposal 2 and yum: some tests

Jeff Pitman symbiont at berlios.de
Thu Sep 29 15:59:48 UTC 2005

On Thursday 29 September 2005 23:31, seth vidal wrote:
> I'm not sure any solution will match up to
> everyone's concept of 'correct'.

I'll admit I haven't read through all the proposals, but, I'll throw out 
a couple of thoughts.  I actually have a similar packaging scenario 
with multiple Pythons on the system.  The best method I have devised is 
usage of a base package name that Requires a version-specific package 

In the case of Python it would be:

python-foo Requires python24-foo.  Where python-foo would essentially be 
an empty placeholder.  Subsequent upgrades to python-foo could then 
Require python25-foo.  While this doesn't guarantee removal of 
python24-foo, that's okay.  Because as soon as user does remove 
python24, then all python24-* packages go into lala land with a "yum 

A potential similar mapping could be made with kernels and 

kernel-module-widget  Requires kernel-module-widget-%{kver}.  Then 
subsequent upgrades to kernel-module-widget can change that Requires 
bringing with it the new kernel-module-widget-%{kver}.  When user 
removes the old kernel, then the old kernel-module-widget-%{kver} will 
leave with it.

Others probably have thought of the same... but, it doesn't really 
require that much magic and no changes to yum are required.  I'd like 
to know if there are any holes in the logic, before I get too far with 
my Python stuff... :P


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list