Em 01-05-2014 10:38, Josh Boyer escreveu:
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.
My 'vote' was more like a figure of speech, sorry. Could have been
clearer in there.
Marcelo
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
