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

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:31:59AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> 
> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> >[...]
> >I answered to this on fedora-devel. I also added this to the wiki. But
> >still let's give an example (versions are faked and simplified, I
> >don't want to go hunting them, but the example is bitter real):
> >
> >ipw2200-1 requires userland package ipw2200-firmware-1
> >
> >We have two kernels, "a" the old one, "b" the new one. So kmod would
> >deliver something like
> >
> >ipw2200-kmod-1-a and
> >ipw2200-kmod-1-b
> >
> >For the two kernels before the module upgrade. Now the following three
> >packages hit the repo
> >
> >ipw2200-kmod-2-a and
> >ipw2200-kmod-2-b
> >ipw2200-firmware-2
> >
> >And the kmods require the new firmware.
> 
> You can package both the old and the new firmware in one package. We did 
> it in livna for ipw2200 because people might still run older Fedora 
> Kernels that requires the new firmware, while the up2date kernel 
> requires the new firmware.

What if the package's files shares the same names? Like for instance
ipw3945 and ipw3945d (I love real-life examples)?

What if the kmdl is dependend on the exact version of the userland
(like nvidia)? Don't we suggest to any decent packager to do have
sane versioning in his subpackaging for a good reason?

Bundling packages into one is a bad thing, especially when they are
the same package of a different version!!!

That's the problem with pandora's box (see the wiki): You have piles
and piles of workarounds/hacks to fix previous bugs of the basic
design problems and evey new "fix" is generating more bugs. Maybe it's
not pandora's box, but more like a Hydra. ;)
-- 
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/20060817/eda4970f/attachment.bin