[Fedora-packaging] flexibility of kmdl interface (was: Kernel Module Packaging Standard Teleconference)

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 04:02:04AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/KernelModulesWithKverInName
>  > This draft has potential.
>  I disagree on this. It is way too narrowly focused on implementation details of kmod.
>  
>  What we needed is strict and narrow conventions on kernel-module NEVRs
>  to assure proper interaction with installers.
>  
>  All the rest is implementation details. Forcing a specific template to
>  me is actionism, because kernel-module rpms are NOT really different
>  from other RPMs, IMO. They are more complex and require strict
>  conventions on their "rpm API", that's all. 
Very nice! :)

Please check out the kmdl interface in the wiki. It is that abstract
and flexible that it could even be used with the buggy kmod scheme. It
is alse rather free-floating syntax, so you can bolster your rpms just
the way you are used to, you just need to make use of a couple macros
(like declaring that this package contains kmdls, or a macro that
points to the kernel source). No further helper applications/scripts
are needed.

The kmdl interface even allows a complete transparent switch to any
kabi scheme. E.g. if all of Fedora Extras uses kmdls and a
uname-r-in-name, and suddenly the RHEL folks want to reuse all of
these kmdls, but with a kabi-version-in-name, they can use the same
specfile/src.rpm unchanged! And someone in the future trying to test
the kmod scheme bugs, can even also just modify a couple of macros in
the kmdl implementation and suddenly the kmdls are named/versioned
like kmods!

And even though there is so much flexibility in the kmdl interface
scheme it still remains extremely KISS and distro-agnostic.

If you like the kmdl proposal is two-fold

o kmdl interface proposal
o kmdl implementation proposal

It's all hidden in the largish wiki text and in the piles of mails.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net