On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 17:45 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > c) is the only technical sensible solution bringing us at 90% of the > target with only one drawback: Ugly names. So what, technical > aesthetics superseed what meets the eye. :) It breaks bugzilla for starters. We deal with this for things like openssl and gcc because they're minimal. Maybe one or two other than the primary. With kmod, we'd be looking at a LOT more than one or two. No other package puts the version for something it depends on in its Name. So, what it boils down to is: rpm is not well built to handle the kernel module packaging case. Can we fix rpm? I doubt it. Everytime I point out a weakness in rpm, I get told that its not going to be fixed. Since upstream is actively hostile towards us, we certainly can't expect them to help. With all of that said: I'll defer to Thorsten and Axel on this one, since they've been knee deep in this. If BOTH of you agree that the _ONLY_ way to have sane kernel module packages (without making rpm changes) is to overload Name, then I'll withdraw my objection to it. (I know Axel feels that way, do you Thorsten?) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || 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
