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

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:06:36PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 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.

o the yum-plugin for kmods is broken and possibly cannot be rectified,
  see mail to Jack

o "out of the box" the current scheme is severely broken. In yum you get
  file conflicts, in rpm total breakage and in smart/apt you get your
  running kernel modules nuked.

You make it sound like the kmdl scheme needs special handling, while
it's the other way round. The kmdl scheme does never jeopardize your
existing install and this inherits to all depsolvers and rpm. While
the kmod scheme violates basic rpm ordering rules and tried to rectify
with in-depsolver special handling *and* plugins and has already been
shown to be broken by design.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060814/b4b7ac6d/attachment.sig>