Preparing Change Proposal: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud - Feedback?

Sandro "red" Mathys red at
Sat Mar 15 03:53:52 UTC 2014

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
>> In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging
>> for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for
>> everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might
>> have misunderstood things or whatever.
> Looks basically good to me.
> I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security
> updaes.


> If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that goes
> under the "dependency" section.

Right, I didn't add it as the kernel split itself does not technically
depend on Anaconda. But on the otherhand, I required the adoption in
the scope.

So I now added a note to the scope that it's not absolutely critical
for the actual change and added it as a soft dependency, too. I know,
we absolutely do want it (and I think the Anaconda team has already
taken the necessary steps) but technically splitting the kernel does
not depend on it.

> Have you tested how yum/dnf work with
> upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from
> being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too.

Continuing this discussion in the other thread. :)

-- Sandro

More information about the cloud mailing list