On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> That brings up a question though, how often would cloud expect to do a >>> yum update of individual packages as opposed to just updating the >>> entire image? If we expect the 3 kernel magic to work there, then >> >> Unless we jump into Colin's rpm ostree future very quickly, we need to >> support this. > > OK. > >>> some changes to yum/dnf may be required given that Cloud would be >>> explicitly specifying "kernel-core" and not "kernel". >> >> There is a hardcoded default list for install-instead-of-upgrade packages -- >> I think we'd just ask for kernel-core to be added to that. Additonally, the >> protected packages functionality (which keeps you from removing the running >> kernel) may need a tweak. > > Sigh. I was trying to keep it as self-contained to the kernel package > as possible. Having to modify a bunch of other packages increases the > test matrix and the hassle factor. Oh well. What about Anaconda? I guess it does have its own mechanic to guarantee a kernel is installed, right? Probably hardcoded as well. Since we're going to build future images with ImageFactory/Anaconda, it must be possible to install either kernel-core or kernel (when installing with a kickstart file, that is). I think putting "-kernel" in %packages doesn't currently have much effect, does it? So if I'm right and Anaconda needs to be adapted for this, I'm happy to reach out to the Anaconda team on our behalf, if necessary. -- Sandro _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
