On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: >> In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging >> for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for >> everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might >> have misunderstood things or whatever. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud > > Looks basically good to me. > > I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security > updaes. Thanks. > If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that goes > under the "dependency" section. Right, I didn't add it as the kernel split itself does not technically depend on Anaconda. But on the otherhand, I required the adoption in the scope. So I now added a note to the scope that it's not absolutely critical for the actual change and added it as a soft dependency, too. I know, we absolutely do want it (and I think the Anaconda team has already taken the necessary steps) but technically splitting the kernel does not depend on it. > Have you tested how yum/dnf work with > upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from > being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too. Continuing this discussion in the other thread. :) -- Sandro _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
