Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

Dusty Mabe dusty at dustymabe.com
Fri Jul 10 13:58:56 UTC 2015

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:44:25AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Dusty Mabe <dusty at dustymabe.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:31:27AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >
> > In this case kernel-core could be installed without any modules and thus not needing
> > linux-firmware.
> >
> > Does this make sense? Is it more complicated than that? I don't know. This is a
> No, it doesn't really make sense.  Yes, it's more complicated.  Why
> would you want to create yet another subpackage for modules instead of
> just moving them into kernel-modules?

I guess I didn't know moving them into kernel-modules was an option. I
thought they were left in kernel-core (and thus separate from kernel-modules)
for a reason.

> > genuinely innocent attempt at trying to propose a solution that might be an alternative.
> Filtering modules to different subpacakges based on whether or not
> they need firmware is pretty time consuming for really little gain.
> You have to detect if they need firmware, move them, make sure depmod
> on kernel-core isn't broken, etc.  The steps we use now are based on
> kernel subsystem and for the most part work relatively well.  Making
> that even more complicated just to move firmware-requiring modules
> would mean it is more fragile and error prone.

The proposal I laid out doesn't really require evaluating each of
them. It was simply to move the ones that are currently in kernel-core
into kernel-core-modules. Yes it would be more complicated simply
because there is another package. Maybe this would be more fragile and
error prone.

> Why don't you just add a Provides: linux-firmware to
> fedora-release-cloud if this must be done on a packaging level?

There are a lot of ways to do it. We could blank or remove the files
after install. We could add a provides to fedora-release-cloud, etc.
These are all pretty easy to do and will probably be what we have to
do. The only reason I don't like these solutions is because a user
could decide that they do need modules and firmware (these can easily
be installed on bringup) and then they have to work with a botched
system to figure out what they need to do to get them.

Thanks for the kind response and going easy on me as I'm not too
familiar with our kernel packaging requirements.


More information about the cloud mailing list