[Fedora-packaging] Re: Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[Jack Neely]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:02:51PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> 
> Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:06 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
> >>> On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So far, the only technical reason that I've heard mentioned here against
> >>> adding kver to Name is that it would make debuginfo more complicated for
> >>> kmod packages (and I believe that someone posted a workaround method).
> >> You forgot the biggest "issue" (note the quotes): All the depsolvers 
> >> would need special handling to install kmods for newly installed 
> >> kernels. That works out of the box with the current scheme and IMHO is 
> >> an important advantage of the current standard. Yes, there exists a 
> >> yum-plugin already that handles it. But we would need something for 
> >> up2date/RHEL5 too in case the ABI breaks -- I suspect that's to late.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I see how this automatically works in the current kmod
> > scheme
> 
> Example (without a special plugin):
> ---
> Installed are:
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
> kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
> 
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 are pushed
> to the repo
> 
> Yum will install:
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
> kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
> ---
> 
> (or alternately, how it doesn't work in the kmod+kver scheme).
> 
> Example (without a special plugin):
> ---
> Installed are:
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
> kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5-1.2
> 
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 are pushed
> to the repo
> 
> Yum will install:
> kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
> 
> kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 won't get installed because it a new
> package for yum whit a different name
> ---
> 
> >>> In fact, I suspect that kmodtool could even include the necessary magic.
> >> Sure, that would be possible. But we'll hit other problems after this 
> >> major scheme change. We probably hit some in the old livna days, but I 
> >> forget most of them already (sorry -- maybe I can skip though bugzilla 
> >> to fresh up my mind). But I think sticking to the current scheme and 
> >> solving the "install-conflicts" problem together with the kabi stuff 
> >> would be the better idea.
> > 
> > Again, I tend to defer to people who know more about packaging kernel
> > modules than I do.
> 
> I'll outline my idea in a more detailed mail I'll start preparing now.
> 
> CU
> thl
> 
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Thorsten,

+1

This lack of functionality is a complete show stopper.  I've been using
a very similar method to the kmod example above for 6+ years.  Its not
been Pain Free(tm) but I have to have an automated system of deploying
updates and kernel modules.  Its just not an option or something that I
will gladly re-invent.

Jack

-- 
Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>
Campus Linux Services Project Lead
Information Technology Division, NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89