On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:50:13 -0500, Build System <buildsys@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > New package GFS-kernel > GFS-kernel - The Global File System kernel modules > New package cman-kernel > cman-kernel - The Cluster Manager kernel modules > New package dlm-kernel > dlm-kernel - The Distributed Lock Manager kernel modules. > New package gnbd-kernel > gnbd-kernel - The kernel module for GFS's Network Block Device My understanding is these package are pretty much the first packages inside Fedora Core to provide kernel modules outside the actual kernel package. I'm looking at the package-naming and they don't follow the kernel module package naming conventions at fedora.us or livna use to ease some of the upgrade problems associated with stand-alone kernel modules. I'm not qualified to comment as to whether or not the package in development are going to have problems upgrading cleanly or not.. but I don't think i've seen a discussion about the approach these packages are taking constrasted to what the addon repositories have been doing. I think we would all benefit if there was a discussion about a consistent way to handle kernel-module packages inside and outside Core. I refer to the fedora.us package naming guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines section C-5 but other 3rd party use similar naming schemes to deal with the stand-alone kernel module issue Are the standalone kernel module packages in development parallel installable? Is yum and up2date as configured in the development tree prepared to treat these packages as parallel installable? If the FC packager has found a way to solve the problems the fedora.us naming scheme tries to address, i think everyone would benifit by seeing a discussion of the merits in the -devel-list sooner rather than later, so we can have a consistent way to deal with kernel-module packaging moving forward. -jef
