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

[Panu Matilainen]

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:30 -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:11:46PM +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.
> > 
> Panu,
> 
> I can agree with this.  Can you point out some working code?

The kernel-module plugin for apt in FE does something like that (it'll
warn you in the above situation, could be made to block the update of
course), but it only works with old fedora.us/livna.org style
kernel-module-foo-`uname -r` packages, IIRC would need some tweaking for
kmdl. I haven't bothered updating my plugins for any new schemes as I've
waited for this very battle to sort itself out some day :) 

	- Panu -