On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 02:13:56PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:50:46PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > >>>>> "PJ" == Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > PJ> That doesn't guarantee the right thing -- it's inverted. It makes > > > PJ> it so that before kernel-devel's %post runs, kernel must be > > > PJ> installed. What Matt needs is a guarantee that kernel-devel is > > > PJ> installed (if it will be installed at all) before kernel's %post > > > PJ> runs. > > > > > > Well, since kernel-devel is the package that's actually the one you > > > need to do anything, can't you just trigger on kernel-devel installs? > > > > no, because if DKMS decides it needs to call mkinitrd again, it needs > > to have kernel installed. It really is a "both and please", hence > > %posttrans gets us that. > > > So, now that this has run its course (yet again), can I ask that my > patches be applied? Those that create a kernel.spec %posttrans, which > invokes new-kernel-pkg --rpmposttrans, which invokes the scripts in > /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ ? > > If running all of /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ is so scary, I'm ok with > new-kernel-pkg explicitly doing > > [ -x /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms ] && /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms $kernelver /boot/vmlinuz-$kernelver > > but I think we've beaten the fact that RPM can't do what I need > (today, that could be changed, but I don't really want to wait forever > for that to happen...). akmodsd needs this type of functionality too. I really want to see this implemented. What more can I do to push this forward? -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
