kernel-modules-extra and GFS2

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:19:32AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

 > >> > I've had some reports recently that appeared to suggest that in F17,
 > >> > GFS2 was no longer being supported by the kernel. Having investigated
 > >> > this, it appears that the root cause is that the gfs2.ko module has been
 > >> > moved to a package called kernel-modules-extra (although the kernel RPM
 > >> > still contains the directory in which the gfs2 module sits, which is a
 > >> > bit odd - why package an empty directory?)
 > >> >
 > >> > Now, I'm wondering whether I should add a dependency on
 > >> > kernel-modules-extra in the gfs2-utils package?

I'm leaning towards saying that would be the right thing to do.

 > "Things that are not widely used in a typical Fedora setup, or things
 > that we might disable entirely but are moving to see if there are users
 > that notice."
 > 
 > GFS2 falls into the first set, not the second.

For exactly this reason.
Your comment about DLM is helpful, though I seem to recall there may have
been another reason we couldn't move that to -extras at the time it
was implemented. (Was that non-modular for a while maybe?).

 > We can move it back if needs be.  Honestly, we might wind up just
 > disabling the rest of the stuff contained in there and dropping the
 > sub-package entirely.  We're still kind of undecided on whether it's
 > worth doing at all.  Thus far there have been 3 requests to move a
 > module back.  The rest seem to be unnoticed.

I've added an item to discuss this on the agenda for this weeks
Fedora kernel meeting[*] for anyone interested.

	Dave

[*] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel