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

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

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 (or alternately, how it doesn't work in the kmod+kver scheme).

> > 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.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!