[Fedora-packaging] kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
> 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
[...]
> 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.

The most important thing didn't come up in this discussion yet (or I 
overlooked it):

5. None of the depsolvers will install new kernel-modules for newly 
installed kernels by default. All need a special plugin that handles that.

That's no problem with the current kmod standard.

CU
thl