[Fedora-packaging] Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[Jack Neely]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:43:45PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> > a) kernel module scheme needs uname-r-in-name
> 
> 
> +/-0 currently if we only work for Fedora here.
> 
> -1 currently if we want the same stuff in RHEL and Fedora -- the "uname
> -r" is not that important with the kabi stuff and the problem should be
> fixed properly.
> 
> Note the word "currently".
> 
> > b) kernel module scheme needs one-specfile approach (for both usreland
> >    and kernel modules)
> 
> -1 ; Reasons:
> 
> - changes only in the kmod will require that the userland packages gets
> rebuild, too. That unnecessary. Yes, it can be prevented manually. But
> we would have to make sure that SRPMs for the old userland packages stay
> in the repo; and we would need special handling in the buildsys -> can
> of worms.
> 
> - people during the last kmod development didn't like having spec files
> with a lot of
> --
> %if userland
> do stuff to build userland
> #endif
> %if module
> do stuff to build kmod
> #endif
> 
> - Because the name of the SRPM doesn't change when you rebuild stuff for
> a newly released kernel the name of the debuginfo packages does also not
> change. So with a one-specfile approach we'd have to
> 
> -- created manually; we tried that during the development of the kmod
> standard. We didn't like it
> 
> or
> 
> -- that the release in increased everytime so the new debuginfo packages
> gets a new name -- creates the SRPMS problem described above
> 
> > c) kernel module scheme needs to be kernel agnostic (both version
> >    *and* flavour)
> 
> +1 -- They are agnostic already. The current hardwiring in the spec file
> is only a temporary solution until we have proper support in the
> buildsys. Yes, there is one place in "kmodtool" where the flavours are
> hardcoded for users that rebuild kmods manually to prevent that they do
> something wrong.
> 
> > d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
> >    (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
> >    ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
> 
> -1 -- we took about half a year to develop the current standard for FE.
> I'm not going to switch to something where besides Axel no one of the
> people around has practical experiences
> 
> - in a hurry
> 
> - without getting a buy-in from Jeremy, f13, davej, warren and jcmasters
> 
> - after test2
> 
> - shortly before RHEL beta 1 (or is it out already?)
> 
> I'd even tend to say: We shouldn't change what was discussed below "a)"
> (see above) at this point. To risky IMHO.
> 
> > e) [...] Requires a positive vote on a-d) [...]
> 
> I had to many -1 up to here, so I'm stopping now ;-)
> 
> CU
> thl
> 
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

I'm with Thorsten.

-1

*) We are way too late to implement a completely new kernel module for
FE6/FC6 and RHEL 5.  We were on schedule with the kmod scheme.  But
alas, I've not coded more things because I've been practicing my email
skills.  (Site point d)

*) I also site the scalability concerns.

Jack

-- 
Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>
Campus Linux Services Project Lead
Information Technology Division, NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89