[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 22:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 10:32:06PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > rpm -U/-i will nuke or overwrite kernel modules of the running
> > > kernel in a uname-r-less scheme.
> > 
> > rpm -U behaves just as documented and just like with all other packages,
> > including the kernels, ie. upgrades them.  Yes, I'm aware of the nuances
> > that might make some say it's not the same.  Whatever, if you don't want
> > that behaviour, don't use -U.  kernel packages don't have
> > uname-r-in-name either, and people are perfectly capable of upgrading
> > their kernels with the rpm CLI.
> > 
> > Ditto, rpm -i behaves like for all other packages, it doesn't nuke or
> > overwrite anything.  Use --oldpackage in addition if you wish to deal
> > with modules for old kernels.
> Just pick Thorsten's example where rpm -U will nuke the kernel module
> from another unrelated kernel and rpm -i will overwrite (coinstall
> over) the kernel module of the latest kernel.

But I thought it was already stated that we don't care about rpm used on
the cli to handle these sorts of things. That we've assumed we're
operating at a level above rpm for constructing the transaction set.

So if you think of rpm's direct use as not a concern what are the other
issues with the current scheme?


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