On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Who tolds about stable ABI-interface? I just suggest to split kernel
into a number of packages and add "virtual" one, that install all of
them. Of course, then someone will upgrade the kernel *all* installed
packages would be upgraded.
abi matters a lot in this really. If you don't have a stable ABI, the
version dependencies get *really* messy, and the user experience goes
down the drain unless.. you make all drivers mandatory again. At which
point you have to ask yourself: "Why do this again"
Who told about ABI at all? I told about splitting kernel-package within
the particular version, *not* about partial upgrade (say, kernel will be
2.6.14-1.1700, although video-driver is still from some previous kernel -
that's a situation there ABI do matter!). User will be forced to upgrade
all its modules, then he changes its kernel.
Everything will be ok, if every little package with kernel module inside
will have
Requires: kernel = 2.6.14-1.1688
or something of that kind.
Look - we got livna's kernel modules. They're all installs and runs w/o
troubles. Guess why? Look at "requires" :).
Ok, summarizing - i suggest a way to strip down the kernel package, thus
reducing its weight (my handmade kernel for my PC weights about 2 mbytes -
compare with 40+ mbytes of FC's generic kernel). If every module would
have proper "requires"-field, all would be OK. :)
Of course, when upgrading, yum must upgrading only those modules, which
user choosed before (the way xorg-x11-drivers do, - note! I don't say
about ABI - aii things are done within particular kernel, w/o mixing
modules).
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
