There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages: - kernel-drivers[1] - kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
poma
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:04:05AM +0200, poma wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Em 01-05-2014 00:14, Chuck Anderson escreveu:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:04:05AM +0200, poma wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
Marcelo
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner marcelo.leitner@gmail.com wrote:
Em 01-05-2014 00:14, Chuck Anderson escreveu:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:04:05AM +0200, poma wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage name. In other words, it's a PITA.
Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
This is out for a vote.
josh
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage name. In other words, it's a PITA.
I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a discussion about the colour of the bike shed.
Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
This is out for a vote.
Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*
Peter
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage name. In other words, it's a PITA.
I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a discussion about the colour of the bike shed.
... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be repainted after the fact. In the future, please don't worry about bike shedding. Nobody else does.
Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
This is out for a vote.
Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first.
josh
Em 01-05-2014 10:38, Josh Boyer escreveu:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage name. In other words, it's a PITA.
I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a discussion about the colour of the bike shed.
... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be repainted after the fact. In the future, please don't worry about bike shedding. Nobody else does.
Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
This is out for a vote.
Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first.
My 'vote' was more like a figure of speech, sorry. Could have been clearer in there.
Marcelo
On 01.05.2014 15:38, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage name. In other words, it's a PITA.
I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a discussion about the colour of the bike shed.
... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be repainted after the fact. In the future, please don't worry about bike shedding. Nobody else does.
Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
This is out for a vote.
Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first.
josh
If "this is not out for a vote" then I do not vote for the "drivers"! Haha.
poma
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first.
josh
Looks like the renaming has hit rawhide in the meantime. Went from kernel to kernel/-core/-drivers to kernel/-core/-modules without any issues at all.
Great job Josh, thanks for the good work!
On 05.05.2014 04:50, Sandro "red" Mathys wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first.
josh
Looks like the renaming has hit rawhide in the meantime. Went from kernel to kernel/-core/-drivers to kernel/-core/-modules without any issues at all.
Great job Josh, thanks for the good work!
+1 "ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING" :)
poma
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:20:32 -0400, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
This is out for a vote.
I think it makes sense for it to be kernel-something and kernel-something-extras. But I don't have a strong preference for what something is.
On 01.05.2014 05:40, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
Em 01-05-2014 00:14, Chuck Anderson escreveu:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:04:05AM +0200, poma wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are drivers.
Marcelo
Very well and succinctly explained!
poma
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 05:04 +0200, poma wrote:
There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
- kernel-drivers[1]
- kernel-modules-extra
Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
When dealing with the general Fedora public (not those who typically pay attention to the kernel in specific), I think kernel-drivers gives a sense of "hey, I might need this package" when something is not working. Kernel-modules-extra is really a package of things we expect very few people to be using and should not be considered of the same urgency. While yes, the naming is inconsistent with the two packages, I think it is consistent with the intent.
Justin
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Chuck Anderson -
Josh Boyer -
Justin Forbes -
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner -
Peter Robinson -
poma -
Sandro "red" Mathys