On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:55 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:52:19AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've had some reports recently that appeared to suggest that in F17, >> > GFS2 was no longer being supported by the kernel. Having investigated >> > this, it appears that the root cause is that the gfs2.ko module has been >> > moved to a package called kernel-modules-extra (although the kernel RPM >> > still contains the directory in which the gfs2 module sits, which is a >> > bit odd - why package an empty directory?) >> > >> > Now, I'm wondering whether I should add a dependency on >> > kernel-modules-extra in the gfs2-utils package? >> >> Why not just open a BZ requesting that gfs2 be moved back into the >> main kernel RPM. IMHO having gfs2 in a separate kernel RPM just creates >> unnecessary complexity/pain for users. > > Well that is one possibility - I'm trying to find the documentation that > explains the criteria for modules being moved into the > kernel-modules-extra package and I've not found any so far.... Essentially, it's: "Things that are not widely used in a typical Fedora setup, or things that we might disable entirely but are moving to see if there are users that notice." GFS2 falls into the first set, not the second. > However, if that is the correct solution, then I'm quite happy with it, > but it isn't immediately obvious as to whether it is or not, We can move it back if needs be. Honestly, we might wind up just disabling the rest of the stuff contained in there and dropping the sub-package entirely. We're still kind of undecided on whether it's worth doing at all. Thus far there have been 3 requests to move a module back. The rest seem to be unnoticed. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
