[Fedora-packaging] Re: kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Panu Matilainen schrieb:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 08:08 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> Now, I don't really want to take any sides in this, I just want the dang
>>> thing to be decided one way or the other so we can move on to 
>>> refining our
>>> plugins, as plugins are required in both schemes to be correctly handled
>>> in all cases. From experience I know the unamer-in-name works quite 
>>> nicely
>>> but has it quirks from user POV [1], OTOH the kmod scheme (currently 
>>> used
>>> by livna) also seems to work just fine, at least it hasn't bitten me yet
>>> although I haven't used any plugins to handle it.

with my livna hat on: the Extras kmod standard we used in FC5 works a 
lot better out of the box (e.g. without plugins) than the old scheme 
where we had in FC[1-4] which had the "uname -r" in the name.

>> I'd just like one or the other, ultimately, please, for the love of all
>> that's good and holy. :)
> Amen! :)

+1

If we really want to fix the problem that was brought up in this 
discussion (the "a update might remove old kmods for older kernels") 
then we IMHO can do that with an adjusted variant of the current 
kmod-standard together with the kabi stuff and/or with a proper plugin. 
I currently prefer the solution with the kabi stuff because that 
solution will have other benefits as well. I can try to outline my 
thoughts/ideas later (maybe today, but probably on the weekend) in more 
detail.

BTW, do we really want to use the "uname -r" again in times where RHEL 
will have a kabi which means that the "uname -r" is mostly meaningless? 
I'd really prefer one solution for both FC and RHEL.

CU
thl