[PATCH] kernel.spec: no more files in /boot

[Jarod Wilson]

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:48:00AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:41:28AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Not that my opinion matters much, but I think this is an interesting
> > > mind shift.  The end result is the same as today, just extra files in
> > > /lib/modules/`uname -r`, right?
> > 
> > Actually, I was hoping some other kernel maintainers would chip in so
> > your opinion does matter.  I really don't want to change this in Fedora
> > to only have it reverted in a future RHEL.  Maybe Jarod or Rafael would
> > be kind enough to review as well...
> 
> Off the top of my head, if it works out for Fedora, I currently can't see a
> reason RHEL would revert it.  But that depends on what quirks falls out. :-)

First pass through, I see a few oddities, some of which aren't the fault
of this patch, but if manipulating these areas, might as well fix them
up...

1) %image_install_path is never defined to anything but boot, for all
supported arches. I think this is ia64 legacy, when it was /boot/efi, but
we should just have a single define for it now.

2) we do this, both before and after the patch:

    mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{debuginfodir}/boot
    mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{debuginfodir}/%{image_install_path}

...which per #1, is obviously redundantly redundant.

3) after the patch, there are multiple install calls to put stuff into
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot/, but then they're %ghost'ed out. This seems a little
bit of a waste, just do a touch for the /boot variants of those files and
%ghost the same. Similarly, with the .hmac file, don't copy it around, put
it where you want the real one, touch the %ghost.

4) it appears there's already logic inside kernel-install to copy the
necessary files over to /boot at install time, and with the %ghost,
they'll properly report as being part of the kernel package, but how long
has that support actually been in kernel-install? Do you possibly want to
add an explicit Requires: systemd >= x-y, as noted in the patch header? (I
would).

Those issues aside, this doesn't really look all that scary at all.

One other thought: what happens when /boot is on the same file system as
/usr and/or /lib? Does the file get unnecessarily copied, or is it
hardlinked or _____?

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com