Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb:
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
[...]
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.
The most important thing didn't come up in this discussion yet (or I overlooked it):
5. None of the depsolvers will install new kernel-modules for newly installed kernels by default. All need a special plugin that handles that.
That's no problem with the current kmod standard. CU thl -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
