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

[Panu Matilainen]

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:16 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:11 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 15:58 -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> > 
> > > Again, show me how kmdl scales.  A university/enterprise environment is
> > > not a 3rd party extras repository.  
> > 
> > I pointed out earlier in this thread that we've used a scheme similar to
> > kmdl at work (speaking of thousands of systems here) rather successfully
> > for several years. And like I stated previously as well, this is just
> > for the record, I'm not arguing for either scheme.
> > 
> > It's not kmdl or kmod that scales, it's the processes for releasing
> > kernel modules and the depsolver+plugin to handle them which need to
> > "scale": a plugin can be smart enough to skip the kernel update if no
> > corresponding kernel module for the new version can be found, or abort
> > the entire update. But you'll need plugins for both schemes to catch the
> > situation where somehow a new kernel slipped out without having kernel
> > modules for it available, otherwise you can end up with unbootable
> > system.
> > 
> 
> monkey-wrench question:
> 
>   what happens if both versions of a kernel module work on the available
> kernel but work with different versions of the userland tools?

S**t hits the fan, that's what happens... and neither scheme can protect
against that. Similar things can happen with the main kernel itself..
you can update the kernel along with a userland (hal, udev or such)
package which is incompatible with the running kernel yet rpm
dependencies are satisfied.

Runtime dependencies/provides would help a bit but then you'd have
unresolvable deps on all the non-running kernels -> doesn't work either.

	- Panu -