Adding Provides: strictdep-kernel[-flavour]-arch = kernelevr to kernels (was: Nameing guideline ...)

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:59:53PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mer 17/12/2003 à 15:51, Chris Ricker a écrit :
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > > So make the SMP one require the UP.
> > > Frankly SMP alsa users are the minority, they'd better have an UP kernel
> > > as fallback, so they can live with two alsa modules without polluting
> > > normal user systems.
> > 
> > Why? My SMP boxes don't have a UP kernel on them.
> 
> Well, better :
> - SMP users shall have SMP and UP code
> than :
> - everyone shall have SMP and UP code
> 
> And anyway who is going to use 2.4 alsa on smp now ?

The naming guidelines should serve more than alsa on 2.4 up machines
;)

I had gone through various models and finaly arrived at the same
solution as Fernando. It is the only maintainable way for supporting
all the released kernels.

There is a "bug/feature" of RH kernels not being distinguishable
enough to set up strict dependencies. There is even a bugzilla entry,
and it was shorty discussed on this list in August.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102639
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2003-August/msg00215.html

The kernel needs to have strict Provides hooks (I call the Provides
strictdep-kernel). I paste them into my RH patched kernels I build and
also offer a glueing package for RH kernels:

  http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/strict-dep-kernel/

Fernando is doing something similar. That's the only way to get
properly matched kernels and kernel modules together, be it manually
or via apt/yum/up2date/....
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20031218/5edded29/attachment-0002.bin