Preparing Change Proposal: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud - Feedback?

[Sandro "red" Mathys]

In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging
for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for
everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might
have misunderstood things or whatever.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud

Note, that I haven't yet reached out to the Anaconda team (regarding
the possibility to install kernel-core instead of kernel) but will do
so now. They don't seem critical to the change, though but just to the
way we're implementing it when creating the images. (Assuming we will
use Anaconda to build F21 images).

Thanks,
Sandro

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
>  In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel
> Packaging
>  for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for
>  everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might
>  have misunderstood things or whatever.
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud 
Looks basically good to me.

I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security
updaes.

If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that goes
under the "dependency" section. Have you tested how yum/dnf work with
upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from
being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too.


-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Sandro "red" Mathys]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
> > In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging
> > for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for
> > everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might
> > have misunderstood things or whatever.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud
>
>  Looks basically good to me.
>
>  I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security
>  updaes. 
Thanks.

>  If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that
> goes
>  under the "dependency" section. 
Right, I didn't add it as the kernel split itself does not technically
depend on Anaconda. But on the otherhand, I required the adoption in
the scope.

So I now added a note to the scope that it's not absolutely critical
for the actual change and added it as a soft dependency, too. I know,
we absolutely do want it (and I think the Anaconda team has already
taken the necessary steps) but technically splitting the kernel does
not depend on it.

>  Have you tested how yum/dnf work with
>  upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from
>  being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too. 
Continuing this discussion in the other thread. :)

-- Sandro