On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 14:10 +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > By documenting it as part of our standards, we're implying that it is
> > something with benefit to the packagers. Since there is no kernel ABI in
> > Fedora or upstream (remember, all kernel ABIs in RHEL are artificial
> > constructs), it does hurt packagers who are unaware of this fact. It
> > leads them to believe that they don't need to use the full Requires:
> > %{version}-%{release} in kernel-module addon packages, when they
> > absolutely do.
>
> Well, they wouldn't necessarily include that Requires line, because
> the kernel dependency is now against a set of binary checksums that
> determine compatibility.
These binary checksums will change with every single kernel
release/variant. I'm not sure I see the point of using an always unique
binary checksum vs a %{version}-%{release}?
> In fact, I'm not really calling for major packaging changes - by
> making a few changes to kmodtool behind the scenes, all of this is
> abstracted from the packager, who is free to demand a specific kernel
> or just let the dependency resolution figure out if the kernel and
> module will be compatible at RPM install time. The only issue really
> is how this would affect official "policy" with regards to kernel
> dependencies as you hinted at above.
If kmodtool starts providing this by default, then there would be no
need for the Requires: v-r in the policy. I suspect you'd need to
convince the kmodtool author(s), not me. :)
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
