On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:26 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> I've created a wiki page outlining the kmdl design as well as showing
> the flaws of the current kernel module scheme ("kmod"):
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
Axel,
Thank you for taking the time to do this. I honestly think it will be
helpful for the Packaging Committee to have this information in front of
them.
Rather than trying to replace kmod with kmdl, I'd rather look at the key
changes that we should consider making.
The biggest one, IMHO, is overloading name with the kernel version. I've
been one of the staunchest opponents of doing this, because I think its
ugly, a hack, and causes problems.
With all that said: I now think it is necessary for kernel module
packages. I did a lot of thinking and reading over the last several
days, and overloading the name works. We know it works, whether done
with rpm by hand or via depsolvers (yum).
As Axel points out: It makes kernel module packages completely
independent across kernels, and within a kernel, the kernel modules are
normally updated. I think these things are key. Users expect things to
just work without having to worry about doing things differently or
special. The reason that third party repositories such as ATrpms have
been so successful is because things just work.
So, what problems does it cause to overload the name?
1. cvs: No changes necessary. CVS keys off SRPM name, which remains
foo-kmod.
2. buildsystem: The buildsystem needs to treat kernel-module packages
differently, but we've got the buildsystem code authors on board to help
fit the buildsystem to our standards (within reason). Either way, the
buildsystem has to detect kernel modules and build them specially, so
this is just a different color of paint. Plus, Axel has volunteered to
help with this.
3. bugzilla: Bugzilla pulls from owners.list, which bases off SRPM/CVS,
so we're fine here.
4. rpm queries: rpm -q kmod-foo doesn't return anything? Say what? Ehh.
If you're a power user enough to be querying with rpm on the
commandline, you're geek enough to rpm -qa |grep kmod-foo and find it.
I now believe that the benefits of overloading the name with kver
outweigh any pain it causes, and I propose that we amend the existing
kernel module standard to include the version of the kernel in the name
field.
Here is an updated version of the kmod proposal with kver in the name:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/KernelModulesWithKverInName
~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
