On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages: >>>>> - kernel-drivers[1] >>>>> - kernel-modules-extra >>>>> >>>>> Are these[1] modules passed the driving test? >>>>> Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again? >>>>> Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name. >>>> >>>> >>>> I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I >>>> agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be >>>> called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be >>>> renamed kernel-drivers-extra. >> >> Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a >> month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to >> get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage >> name. In other words, it's a PITA. > > I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a > discussion about the colour of the bike shed. ... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be repainted after the fact. In the future, please don't worry about bike shedding. Nobody else does. >> Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing >> subpackage installed can deal with it manually. > > I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide > updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out > >>> I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are >>> drivers. >> >> This is out for a vote. > > Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules* I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I have another bug to fix first. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
