On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:02:51PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:06 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
>>> On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>>
>>> So far, the only technical reason that I've heard mentioned here
against
>>> adding kver to Name is that it would make debuginfo more complicated for
>>> kmod packages (and I believe that someone posted a workaround method).
>> You forgot the biggest "issue" (note the quotes): All the depsolvers
>> would need special handling to install kmods for newly installed
>> kernels. That works out of the box with the current scheme and IMHO is
>> an important advantage of the current standard. Yes, there exists a
>> yum-plugin already that handles it. But we would need something for
>> up2date/RHEL5 too in case the ABI breaks -- I suspect that's to late.
>
> I'm not sure I see how this automatically works in the current kmod
> scheme
Example (without a special plugin):
---
Installed are:
kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 are pushed
to the repo
Yum will install:
kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
---
(or alternately, how it doesn't work in the kmod+kver scheme).
Example (without a special plugin):
---
Installed are:
kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5
kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5-1.2
kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 are pushed
to the repo
Yum will install:
kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5
kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 won't get installed because it a new
package for yum whit a different name
---
>>> In fact, I suspect that kmodtool could even include the necessary magic.
>> Sure, that would be possible. But we'll hit other problems after this
>> major scheme change. We probably hit some in the old livna days, but I
>> forget most of them already (sorry -- maybe I can skip though bugzilla
>> to fresh up my mind). But I think sticking to the current scheme and
>> solving the "install-conflicts" problem together with the kabi stuff
>> would be the better idea.
>
> Again, I tend to defer to people who know more about packaging kernel
> modules than I do.
I'll outline my idea in a more detailed mail I'll start preparing now.
CU
thl
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
Thorsten,
+1
This lack of functionality is a complete show stopper. I've been using
a very similar method to the kmod example above for 6+ years. Its not
been Pain Free(tm) but I have to have an automated system of deploying
updates and kernel modules. Its just not an option or something that I
will gladly re-invent.
Jack
--
Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu>
Campus Linux Services Project Lead
Information Technology Division, NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89