[Fedora-packaging] kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 14:04 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:26 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > I've created a wiki page outlining the kmdl design as well as showing
> > the flaws of the current kernel module scheme ("kmod"):
> > 
> > 	  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
> 
> Axel,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to do this. I honestly think it will be
> helpful for the Packaging Committee to have this information in front of
> them.
> 
> Rather than trying to replace kmod with kmdl, I'd rather look at the key
> changes that we should consider making.
> 
> The biggest one, IMHO, is overloading name with the kernel version. I've
> been one of the staunchest opponents of doing this, because I think its
> ugly, a hack, and causes problems.
> 
> With all that said: I now think it is necessary for kernel module
> packages. I did a lot of thinking and reading over the last several
> days, and overloading the name works. We know it works, whether done
> with rpm by hand or via depsolvers (yum).
> 
> As Axel points out: It makes kernel module packages completely
> independent across kernels, and within a kernel, the kernel modules are
> normally updated. I think these things are key. Users expect things to
> just work without having to worry about doing things differently or
> special. The reason that third party repositories such as ATrpms have
> been so successful is because things just work.
> 
> So, what problems does it cause to overload the name?
> 
> 1. cvs: No changes necessary. CVS keys off SRPM name, which remains
> foo-kmod.
> 
> 2. buildsystem: The buildsystem needs to treat kernel-module packages
> differently, but we've got the buildsystem code authors on board to help
> fit the buildsystem to our standards (within reason). Either way, the
> buildsystem has to detect kernel modules and build them specially, so
> this is just a different color of paint. Plus, Axel has volunteered to
> help with this.
> 
> 3. bugzilla: Bugzilla pulls from owners.list, which bases off SRPM/CVS,
> so we're fine here.
> 
> 4. rpm queries: rpm -q kmod-foo doesn't return anything? Say what? Ehh.
> If you're a power user enough to be querying with rpm on the
> commandline, you're geek enough to rpm -qa |grep kmod-foo and find it.
> 
> I now believe that the benefits of overloading the name with kver
> outweigh any pain it causes, and I propose that we amend the existing
> kernel module standard to include the version of the kernel in the name
> field.
> 
> Here is an updated version of the kmod proposal with kver in the name:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/KernelModulesWithKverInName

not to make work but it wouldn't be hard.

would it be worth making a little script to help users manage kernel
modules like they would with rpm?

kernel-module-package -q kmod-foo

would look through the package lists/provides lists and find out all the
installed packages that way?

-sv