[Fedora-packaging] Re: Kernel Module Packaging Standard Teleconference

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 23:23 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> 
> RC> I disagree on this. It is way too narrowly focused on
> RC> implementation details of kmod.
> 
> To some degree I agree with this.
> 
> RC> What we needed is strict and narrow conventions on kernel-module
> RC> NEVRs to assure proper interaction with installers.
> 
> Well, it's more than that; we have to ensure proper interaction with
> the buildsys and there may be restrictions on file locations and such.
Agreed, like we agree upon "apps go to %{_bindir}", "libs go to
%{_libdir}", we need a clear and strict convention on where
kernel-modules need to be installed. 

How to handle accompanying userspace libs/apps, whether to use split or
unified srpms/specs, how many kernel-modules to build simultaneously
from one spec are implementation details, each with different pros and
cons.

> But beyond those things I agree that a bit of leeway is reasonable.
> 
> Of course, this stuff is _hard_, and the templates are a great idea
> because it allows packagers to just plug the details in.  But that's
> different from saying that the spec MUST conform to that template.
Exactly. It's a particular rpm's macroscopic behavior as viewed by the
installers that matters.

> So perhaps we could approach this issue from the other direction: what
> NEVR convention(s) and file locations are required so that rpm, yum
> and the like will properly handle the modules, including parallel
> installs without conflict?  What do the spec(s) need to have so that
> the buildsys can build them for all supported kernel versions and
> variants?
Fully agreed, sounds very reasonable to me.

Ralf