Hi, On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 07:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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. > Yes, but this makes no sense at all.... looking at the selection that has been made we have: o DLM in the main kernel package o OCFS2 and GFS2 - the only two in-kernel users of DLM in kernel-modules-extra I know that cLVM also uses DLM, but from userland and I wonder just how many people use cLVM who don't use of the cluster filesystems - probably a few, but most likely not a huge number. Perhaps more importantly, DLM depends on SCTP and SCTP is only in kernel-modules-extra, so I think this needs a rethink. > > 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 I can certainly open a bug to request a more sane assignment of modules to packages, but just wanted to be sure of the criteria so that I am asking for the correct things, Steve. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
