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

[Fedora-packaging] Re: atrpms kernel modules



On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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.

Kernel modules for foo should only have one bugzilla entry, namely
"foo", e.g. the src.rpm's name. Just like there is no bugzilla netry
for "foo-devel" and other subpackaging - you can safely consider kmdl
subpackages of the same package.

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

Well, we already gave some examples and there were gstreamer07 (or 08)
plugins as well. When you have a very tight integration of core
package and it's plugins (which is what the kernel and the kernel
module packages are) *AND* you have the requirement that the core
package can have multiple consurrent installs, then the plugins'
association to the core packages need to be marked in the
name. Specifically for kernel modules this means uname-r-in-the-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.

No, we can't fix rpm. If there is ever an rpm-ng project revising
package management in general we could address this on the blueprint
stage, but as it stands neither rpm, nor deb can be patched up to
overcome some deficiencies (and this is not the only one).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp3xqflaVkYx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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