On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 02:20:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 23 July 2006 14:12, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Well, add to the above that the kABI isn't going to give you an > > orderable single entry like uname-r does (but maybe noone cares, the > > kernel module packaging at least wouldn't), and that no user will > > understand the mapping between his kernel, whose uname -r he knows, > > and a kABI checksum. > > > > But in principle if one day kABI checksums gain a popularity/visibilty > > like uname-r has today on the user's side, then I agree, that uname-r > > in the name could be replaced with a kABI checksum. In the kmdl scheme > > this would be a rather trivial change. > > Perhaps I fail to see the problem. Once you have an ABI to use for requires > and such, can't you use someting more simple in the version or release rather > than a uname-r in the name? The kABI is a set of headers out of which you can generate a checksum. The checksum will by definition not be orderable, and also not memorizable. Similar to mercurial changeset ids. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpkho910o6gM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
