On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:31:27AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller > > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:06:04AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> > Well, and linux-firmware, which isn't needed at runtime but is pulled > > >> > in for kernel upgrades, and which to my knowledge is not needed in any > > >> > cloud environments. You might be the right person to talk to about > > >> > figuring out if we can do anything about this. > > >> A post install scriptlet that removes the files in the cloud > > >> kickstarts is about as far as I'm going to go. I'm not dropping the > > >> Requires from the kernel-core package and leave everyone else in the > > >> lurch. Another option would be a dummy package that Provides > > >> linux-firmware, but that also runs the risk of non-cloud instances > > >> getting it installed since we don't have separate repos. > > > > > > It's unfortunate that the dependencies can't be expressed in a richer > > > way here. It's not that the kernel requires that package... the > > > hardware does. Even if we remove it in the cloud kickstarts, it gets > > > pulled back in on update, because it's a "Requires(pre)". > > > > Create a dnf plugin to ignore it. > > Will this handle the rpm db correctly? Meaning after the install will > rpm still think there is a missing dependency? If this happens I think > you get a warning anytime you use yum/dnf. > > > > > >> (The third "option" is a separate cloud kernel package but that would > > >> make the rework we did in f22 pointless and wasted and we've already > > >> had that discussion.) > > > > > > Hmmmm -- what about making linux-firmware a Requires(Pre) for > > > kernel-modules instead of kernel-core? > > > > Can't, because not all of the modules are in modules, and some of them > > in core need firmware. Naive little me might have an idea. This may not be technically possible for some reason so forgive me if my suggestion has on oversight. We currently have the kernel "meta" package with these requires: [root@localhost ~]# repoquery -q --requires --output ascii-tree kernel --level 2 Yum-utils package has been deprecated, use dnf instead. See 'man yum2dnf' for more information. kernel-0:4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 [cmd line] \_ kernel-core-0:4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 [1: kernel-core-uname-r = 4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64] | \_ bash-0:4.3.39-3.fc22.x86_64 [1: /bin/sh] | \_ coreutils-0:8.23-10.fc22.x86_64 [1: fileutils] | \_ dracut-0:041-14.fc22.x86_64 [1: dracut >= 027] | \_ linux-firmware-0:20150521-52.git3161bfa4.fc22.noarch [1: linux-firmware >= 20130724-29.git31f6b30] | \_ systemd-0:219-13.fc22.i686 [2: systemd >= 200, systemd >= 203-2] | \_ systemd-0:219-18.fc22.x86_64 [2: systemd >= 200, systemd >= 203-2] \_ kernel-modules-0:4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 [1: kernel-modules-uname-r = 4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64] | \_ bash-0:4.3.39-3.fc22.x86_64 [1: /bin/sh] | \_ kernel-core-0:4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 [1: kernel-uname-r = 4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64] Could we break out the modules that live in kernel-core into a new package called kernel-core-modules. The toplevel kernel meta package would require it as well so we would have something like this: kernel \_ kernel-core | \_ bash | \_ coreutils | \_ dracut | \_ systemd-0:XXXXXX.fc22.i686 | \_ systemd-0:XXXXXX.fc22.x86_64 \_ kernel-core-modules | \_ linux-firmware \_ kernel-modules | \_ bash | \_ kernel-core | \_ kernel-core-modules In this case kernel-core could be installed without any modules and thus not needing linux-firmware. Does this make sense? Is it more complicated than that? I don't know. This is a genuinely innocent attempt at trying to propose a solution that might be an alternative. Sorry to open this back up.. Please be gentle :) - Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
