On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 07:31:46PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
> [...]
> I'll defer to Thorsten and Axel on this one, since they've been knee
> deep in this.
scop should be asked, too. He's probably knee deep (or even deeper) into
this, too.
> If BOTH of you agree that the _ONLY_ way to have sane kernel
> module packages (without making rpm changes) is to overload Name,
> then I'll withdraw my objection to it. (I know Axel feels that
> way, do you Thorsten?)
Well, I stick to my opinion that "uname -r" in Name creates some
problems on its own and not worth the trouble.
But please be as fair as to admit that w/o uname-r in name the
problems are several magnitudes worse. rpm -U/-i will nuke or
overwrite kernel modules of the running kernel in a uname-r-less
scheme.
uname-r-in-name and the kmdl scheme isn't going to bring peace on
earth, but it is already very close to the requirements on kernel
module packages which no merging-versions-scheme can be.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net