> As for naming, the kernel version needs to be stored
Dependencies, surely, but it does not _have_ to be in the package's NVR,
as demonstrated by the external kernel module packages in FC4 (eg.
GFS-kernel). Having it in the NVR somewhere is useful for humans, and
it can be (ab?)used to get depsolvers to do "stuff".
Your kernel module should require the kernel it was built for. Its
simple and already common practice. I already have depresolver code
that examines the EVR of any Requires that are in the list of packages
considered kernel packages.
I strongly oppose having the kernel version/type in the packages NVR.
The depresolver should be smart enough to know when to install kernel
module packages and in what conditions to erase them. Kernel module
packages are never upgraded.
> And we need to finalize the naming issue before we can
> decide what behavior depsolvers need.
I prefer the naming scheme of <foo>-kernel
However the depresolver should not hinge off of a specific naming
scheme. Kernel modules should Provide kernel-modules to trigger the
extra functionality in the depresolver.
Jack Neely <slack(a)quackmaster.net>
Realm Linux Administration and Development
PAMS Computer Operations at NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89