[Fedora-packaging] Re: Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:31:04AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Saturday 12 August 2006 08:14, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > Both choices have their weak and strong points. If it's impossible
> > > > to decide based on technical merits alone... flip a coin or
> > > > something, really.
> > > 
> > > Or continue to use the current one that is being used by current
> > > packages in Extras, and in RHEL.
> > 
> > and which cannot be used for manual rpm installations, breaks all
> > depsolvers, endangers your running setup or the total upgradablity of
> > the system and the ugly workarounds trying to fix this turn out to
> > introduce more bugs that they fix making the depsolver support a
> > maintenance nightmare.
> 
> To be fair, the only change to kmod that would be necessary to remove
> all of this "it won't work for manual rpm installations" is the addition
> of kver in the Name field.

It sounds like it's a minor details, but it's a major design block. If
you also agree to one specfile handling for both userland/kernelland
you end up at kmdl's versioning with a different name.

And since one does throw out the biggest design elements, why not
bring in all the other good stuff that kmdls bring with them? Nobody
objected to the rest of the benfits only the uname-r-in-name stuff is
being discussed.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20060814/f85f7306/attachment.bin