On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 12:32 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > It's the same story: Parallel installation. > > Indeed - and to be exact: safely upgradable parallel installation. > > We have for example libpng-1.2.8 and libpng10-1.0.18 in FC5. Rpm would > allow installing them parallerly if they were just libpng-1.2.8 and > libpng-1.0.18 so why do we rename it? To allow them to be upgraded > separately, an alleged 'rpm -Uvh libpng-1.2.9' would remove both versions. > > I haven't seen anybody arguing we should drop those compat packages and > rely on yum plugin to deal with situations like the above correctly... so > why are kernel modules any different? So, why is the kernel any different? Let's identify the differences between the kernel and other packages and then decide whether kernel-modules fit the same criteria as the kernel or normal packages. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
