[RFC PATCH] Add modules-extra subpackage

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

On 18.11.2011 15:52, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Below is the first swag at a kernel-modules-extra package.

A little bit of background and reasons for this move would be nice. I
assume it was mentioned somewhere already, but seems I missed it.

Anyway, two minor comments:

> [...]
>  kernel.spec    |   69 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> [...]
> diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
> index b72afb3..9eadbb1 100644
> --- a/kernel.spec
> +++ b/kernel.spec
> [...]
> +# This macro creates a kernel-<subpackage>-modules-extra package.
> +#	%%kernel_modules-extra_package <subpackage> <pretty-name>
> +#
> +%define kernel_modules-extra_package() \
> +%package %{?1:%{1}-}modules-extra\
> +Summary: Extra kernel modules to match the %{?2:%{2} }kernel\
> +Group: System Environment/Kernel\
> +Provides: kernel%{?1:-%{1}}-modules-extra-%{_target_cpu} = %{version}-%{release}\
> +Provides: kernel-modules-extra-%{_target_cpu} = %{version}-%{release}%{?1:.%{1}}\
> +Provides: kernel-modules-extra = %{version}-%{release}%{?1:.%{1}}\
> +Provides: kernel-modules-extra-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}\

Do we really need all of those provides? Yes, they are derived from the
provides in the main package, but I wonder if we still need all of those
there and if it's worth adding similar ones to this new subpackage.
Maybe trimming the list of provides in the main package in the long term
might be something to think about. In addition:

> +Requires: kernel%{?1:-%{1}}-%{_target_cpu} = %{version}-%{release}%{?1:.%{1}}\

Just FYI: Kmod2 packages in some popular add on repo depend on the
kernel they were build for with this:

kernel-uname-r = 3.1.1-2.fc16.x86_64

That seems to work well afaics. I think there was a reason back years
ago why we settled for this strategy and did not use the requires you
chose -- but I can't recall it and maybe it's not relevant any more
these days anyway (and maybe my mind comes up with the reason seconds
after sending this mail...).

Cu
knurd