[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: atrpms kernel modules



On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 17:45 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

> c) is the only technical sensible solution bringing us at 90% of the
> target with only one drawback: Ugly names. So what, technical
> aesthetics superseed what meets the eye. :)

It breaks bugzilla for starters. We deal with this for things like
openssl and gcc because they're minimal. Maybe one or two other than the
primary. With kmod, we'd be looking at a LOT more than one or two.

No other package puts the version for something it depends on in its
Name.

So, what it boils down to is: rpm is not well built to handle the kernel
module packaging case.

Can we fix rpm? I doubt it. Everytime I point out a weakness in rpm, I
get told that its not going to be fixed. Since upstream is actively
hostile towards us, we certainly can't expect them to help.

With all of that said:

I'll defer to Thorsten and Axel on this one, since they've been knee
deep in this. If BOTH of you agree that the _ONLY_ way to have sane
kernel module packages (without making rpm changes) is to overload Name,
then I'll withdraw my objection to it. (I know Axel feels that way, do
you Thorsten?)

~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!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]