On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi schrieb: > > Apologies for posting into the wrong subthread of this monster, I > > already deleted the relevant mail. > > > > If one of the major issues with the current kmod spec is that neither > > rpm -U nor rpm -i work correctly, shouldn't that be corrected? If the > > module could install into something like this: > > /lib/modules/MODULE-VERSION-RELEASE/(KERNELVER|KABI)/MODULE.ko > > > > instead of: > > /lib/modules/KERNELVER/extra/MODULE/MODULE.ko > > > > wouldn't that bring the behaviour of kmods inline with that of the > > kernel? (Use rpm -i for normal operations, rpm -U if you don't believe > > in Murphy). > > I like that idea -- especially when combined with the the kabi stuff. > Yes, someone still could run "rpm -Uvh" and would loose older kmods, but > yum and apt would do the right thing. Why would suddenly yum/apt work better? The issues brought up with the current kernel module scheme didn't address the actual contents of the packages and Toshio's suggestion only discusses the contents. So any raised issue on the naming/versioning of kernel module packages still remains as discussed - including non-rpm conformant behaviour of such packages with the rpm -U/-i nuke/conflict situation, which is still not "fixed" on yum level or any other depsolver's (and having looked into yum's plugin system which is quite nice BTW, I don't know whether it will be "fixable" at all) "Fixing yum or the yum plugin" is in quotes, because it is not yum that has any deficiencies, but the current kernel packaging scheme. The kmdl scheme works with yum already even w/o a plugin and a plugin under 100 lines enables coinstalls for new kernel packages. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpyprgrOrvYz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
