On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:04:24PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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
> 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).
I'm glad I'm getting things rolling finally :)
But please consider the following: Changing some key elements like
uname-r-in-name and one-specfile you inevitably end very near to kmdl
scheme. If these idioms are decided upon to be used in the future it
would be a pity to create yet-another-standard if the one existing
(kmdl) really covers everything we wish.
It's also a scheme in use by ATrpms since quite some time and a
vehicle for me to push some kernel modules to FE (provided the
legal/quality issues are covered).
That having said if something needs improvement in the kmdl scheme I'm
open to suggestions. But it would really be a pity to come so close
and still have a forked scheme.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpUEDmPEw475.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
