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

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:16:22PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:11 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 15:58 -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> > 
> > > Again, show me how kmdl scales.  A university/enterprise environment is
> > > not a 3rd party extras repository.  
> > 
> > I pointed out earlier in this thread that we've used a scheme similar to
> > kmdl at work (speaking of thousands of systems here) rather successfully
> > for several years. And like I stated previously as well, this is just
> > for the record, I'm not arguing for either scheme.
> > 
> > It's not kmdl or kmod that scales, it's the processes for releasing
> > kernel modules and the depsolver+plugin to handle them which need to
> > "scale": a plugin can be smart enough to skip the kernel update if no
> > corresponding kernel module for the new version can be found, or abort
> > the entire update. But you'll need plugins for both schemes to catch the
> > situation where somehow a new kernel slipped out without having kernel
> > modules for it available, otherwise you can end up with unbootable
> > system.
> > 
> 
> monkey-wrench question:
> 
>   what happens if both versions of a kernel module work on the available
> kernel but work with different versions of the userland tools?

Can you explain? Do you mean two subsequent package versions of a
kernel module, e.g. a version bump in the module's versioning side?
-- 
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/20060815/bd7b2ec3/attachment.sig>