[Fedora-packaging] get further rid of uname -r in the kmod stuff and solve the remaining kmod problem
fedora at leemhuis.info
Mon Aug 14 18:47:18 UTC 2006
Jesse Keating schrieb:
> On Monday 14 August 2006 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Yum will install:
>> *and remove*
>> in the same transaction because the module location of
>> kmod-foo-188.8.131.52.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-184.108.40.206.17-1.2171_FC5 would
>> conflict. *This remove is the problem Axel complains about.*
> I could see it removing kmod-foo-220.127.116.11.17-1.2171_FC5, but why does it also
> remove kmod-foo-18.104.22.168.17-1.2157_FC5? Wouldn't that be in a different
> module tree?
Well, normally it's a "install transaction" but when there is a
potential file conflict it's changed to a "upgrade transaction" afaik --
and that will remove the old kmod as well because both old kmods have
the same packagename.
>> == Proposed solution ==
>> Install the kernel-module to
>> and remove the
>> "Requires: kernel<?kernel-flavour>-<?kernel-version>
>> We avoid the file conflicts noted in "Problem" above due to the
>> "VERSION-RELEASE" in the path. So yum will always install the module and
>> there won't be any conflicts.
>> But how will the kernel find the module there? "/sbin/weak-modules", the
>> script from the kabi stuff can create links to the proper places. It
>> does this already for modules installed in the proper place and kernels
>> that have the compatible kabi. It would be needed to adjust some
>> pathnames in the script, but that shouldn't be to hard.
>> And why remove the Requires? Well, with the kabi stuff it might happen
>> (not that often in Fedora, but on RHEL often) that a module runs fine on
>> a newer kernel. We wouldn't have to build a new module in that case.
>> *But* this requires would fire back because the kmod will get removed by
>> the depsolver when the kernel is was build for gets uninstalled.
>> Therefor it needs to be removed.
> Also, with the kabi stuff, the Requires should get done automatically to an
> ABI version. If the next kernel has an ABI change, and you rebuild the
> module, thats cool, it picks up the new ABI in the automatic Requires. No
> manual intervention.
That would solve the problem nicely.
> I would _really_ like to get JCM involved in this discussion, especially on
> the proper place to drop these modules so that a respin for one kernel won't
> remove modules from an older kernel.
/me going to bed now soon
More information about the packaging