On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:06 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb: > > On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > So far, the only technical reason that I've heard mentioned here against > > adding kver to Name is that it would make debuginfo more complicated for > > kmod packages (and I believe that someone posted a workaround method). > > You forgot the biggest "issue" (note the quotes): All the depsolvers > would need special handling to install kmods for newly installed > kernels. That works out of the box with the current scheme and IMHO is > an important advantage of the current standard. Yes, there exists a > yum-plugin already that handles it. But we would need something for > up2date/RHEL5 too in case the ABI breaks -- I suspect that's to late. I'm not sure I see how this automatically works in the current kmod scheme (or alternately, how it doesn't work in the kmod+kver scheme). > > In fact, I suspect that kmodtool could even include the necessary magic. > > Sure, that would be possible. But we'll hit other problems after this > major scheme change. We probably hit some in the old livna days, but I > forget most of them already (sorry -- maybe I can skip though bugzilla > to fresh up my mind). But I think sticking to the current scheme and > solving the "install-conflicts" problem together with the kabi stuff > would be the better idea. Again, I tend to defer to people who know more about packaging kernel modules than I do. ~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
