Tom 'spot' Callaway schrieb: > 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 Example (without a special plugin): --- Installed are: kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 are pushed to the repo Yum will install: kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 kmod-foo-1.2.2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 --- (or alternately, how it doesn't work in the kmod+kver scheme). Example (without a special plugin): --- Installed are: kernel-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2157_FC5-1.2 kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 and kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 are pushed to the repo Yum will install: kernel-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5 kmod-foo-2.6.17-1.2171_FC5-1.2 won't get installed because it a new package for yum whit a different name --- >>> 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. I'll outline my idea in a more detailed mail I'll start preparing now. CU thl -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
