kernel-module package naming

[Tom Callaway]

I don't think there is any dispute that magic will be needed to solve
this problem.

The more I think about it, the more I am opposed to abusing the package
%{NAME} to solve it.

Let's make the ground level assumption that packages containing kernel
modules will be named %{NAME}-module, based on precedence in Fedora
Core.

So we'll have this:

Fedora Core:
GFS-module

Fedora Extras:
openafs-module
unionfs-module

Livna:

ati-module
nvidia-module

> From there, we work uphill. 
~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Chuck Anderson]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  Fedora Extras:
>  openafs-module
>  unionfs-module 
I don't like this.  How are we supposed to refer to these packages in
the yum configuration for installonly?  *-module might collide with
other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module?  perl
module?).  I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is
a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum
configuration.

[Tom Callaway]

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:54 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway
> wrote:
> > Fedora Extras:
> > openafs-module
> > unionfs-module
>
> I don't like this.  How are we supposed to refer to these packages in
> the yum configuration for installonly?  *-module might collide with
> other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module?  perl
> module?).  I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is
> a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum
> configuration.  
This seems reasonable. Is anyone opposed to:

kernel-module-GFS
kernel-module-openafs
kernel-module-unionfs
kernel-module-ati
kernel-module-nvidia

?

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Dag Wieers]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

>  On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:54 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson wrote:
>  >On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  >> Fedora Extras:
>  >> openafs-module
>  >> unionfs-module
>  >
>  >I don't like this.  How are we supposed to refer to these packages in
>  >the yum configuration for installonly?  *-module might collide with
>  >other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module?  perl
>  >module?).  I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is
>  >a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum
>  >configuration. 
>  
>  This seems reasonable. Is anyone opposed to:
>  
>  kernel-module-GFS
>  kernel-module-openafs
>  kernel-module-unionfs
>  kernel-module-ati
>  kernel-module-nvidia 
Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This 
example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be 
confusing or problematic.

Other distributions already moved (or are evolving) to lower case as the 
default. (Even though perl is a good exception where uppercase and strict 
names are important)

--   dag wieers,  dag(a)wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

[Tom Callaway]

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 18:05 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:

> Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This
>
> example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be 
> confusing or problematic. 
I think we should defer to the name of the sourcecode we're packaging.
If it is GFS and not gfs, then we should match the name appropriately.

Does the yum search deal with case-insensitivity? If not, then its more
of an issue.

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Dag Wieers]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dag Wieers wrote:

>  On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  
>  > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:54 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson wrote:
>  > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  > >> Fedora Extras:
>  > >> openafs-module
>  > >> unionfs-module
>  > >
>  > >I don't like this.  How are we supposed to refer to these packages in
>  > >the yum configuration for installonly?  *-module might collide with
>  > >other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module?  perl
>  > >module?).  I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is
>  > >a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum
>  > >configuration. 
>  > 
>  > This seems reasonable. Is anyone opposed to:
>  > 
>  > kernel-module-GFS
>  > kernel-module-openafs
>  > kernel-module-unionfs
>  > kernel-module-ati
>  > kernel-module-nvidia
>  
>  Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This 
>  example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be 
>  confusing or problematic.
>  
>  Other distributions already moved (or are evolving) to lower case as the 
>  default. (Even though perl is a good exception where uppercase and strict 
>  names are important) 
I once wrote a few documents explaining the package namespace and ideas 
about that, including the kernel-module namespace.

	http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/naming-convention.txt
	http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/renamed-packages.txt

Both have pointers to other projects guidelines regarding naming and 
namespace.

The lib%{name} stuff was very controversial back then, even as a 
proposal. Whatever policy is chosen, I'm sure that the pragmatic way of 
enforcing it would be to start off (or limit it) to new packages only.

The add-on packages is something that is also not yet endorsed by 
everyone. The basic idea is to have an add-on package start with the name 
it adds something to. Like a python module starts off with python-%{name} 
and an xmms plugin starts with xmms-%{name}. Even when it is a sub-package 
of %{name} or the original name is slightly different (does/does not 
include a prefix or is named the other way around).

I think the biggest difficulty with coming up with a proper naming scheme 
is that people want to put that next to the current packages and suddenly 
see a lot of things not complying and then object to the proposed 
standard. We may have to first acknowledge that the current namespace is 
the result of not having a naming convention and acknowledge the fact that 
we don't necessarily need to fix everything that already exists to adopt a 
naming scheme for new packages.

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag(a)wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:06 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>  On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 18:05 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
>  
>  >Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This 
>  >example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be 
>  >confusing or problematic.
>  
>  I think we should defer to the name of the sourcecode we're packaging.
>  If it is GFS and not gfs, then we should match the name appropriately.
>  
>  Does the yum search deal with case-insensitivity? If not, then its more
>  of an issue. 
yum list and yum search do case-insentive matching.

yum install/remove/update does not, for obvious reasons.

-sv