Panu Matilainen schrieb:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 08:08 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Now, I don't really want to take any sides in this, I just want the dang
thing to be decided one way or the other so we can move on to
refining our
plugins, as plugins are required in both schemes to be correctly handled
in all cases. From experience I know the unamer-in-name works quite
nicely
but has it quirks from user POV [1], OTOH the kmod scheme (currently
used
by livna) also seems to work just fine, at least it hasn't bitten me yet
although I haven't used any plugins to handle it.
with my livna hat on: the Extras kmod standard we used in FC5 works a
lot better out of the box (e.g. without plugins) than the old scheme
where we had in FC[1-4] which had the "uname -r" in the name.
I'd just like one or the other, ultimately, please, for the love of all
that's good and holy. :)
Amen! :)
+1
If we really want to fix the problem that was brought up in this
discussion (the "a update might remove old kmods for older kernels")
then we IMHO can do that with an adjusted variant of the current
kmod-standard together with the kabi stuff and/or with a proper plugin.
I currently prefer the solution with the kabi stuff because that
solution will have other benefits as well. I can try to outline my
thoughts/ideas later (maybe today, but probably on the weekend) in more
detail.
BTW, do we really want to use the "uname -r" again in times where RHEL
will have a kabi which means that the "uname -r" is mostly meaningless?
I'd really prefer one solution for both FC and RHEL.
CU
thl
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
