[Fedora-packaging] Re: kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[Panu Matilainen]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, seth vidal wrote:

>> NC State University.  Duke.  I believe Matt at Boston U. has used this
>> approch in the past as well.
>>
>
> Agreed. We've been using kernels and kernel-modules in this way for a
> number of years, now.
>
> example:
> rpm -q --provides openafs-kernel
> kernel-module-openafs-2.6.9-22.0.2.EL
> kernel-modules
> openafs-kernel = 0:1.3.82-7.duke.1.centos4

Just for the measure, we've been using kernel-module-foo-<uname -r> scheme 
(basically the old livna.org scheme which is similar to Axels kmdl scheme) 
very successfully at work for a few years. Been working quite nicely, 
first with apt and now yum, both with an additional plugin to handle 
these.

Now, I don't really want to take any sides in this, I just want the dang 
thing to be decided one way or the other so we can move on to refining our 
plugins, as plugins are required in both schemes to be correctly handled 
in all cases. From experience I know the unamer-in-name works quite nicely 
but has it quirks from user POV [1], OTOH the kmod scheme (currently used 
by livna) also seems to work just fine, at least it hasn't bitten me yet 
although I haven't used any plugins to handle it.

[1] When you can't rely on plugins, eg with plain rpm, one needs to 
remember to append -`uname -r` to the package name. Our users haven't 
complained about that, mostly I suppose because they never really see it 
thanks to plugins.

 	- Panu -