On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 01:57 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > /lib/modules/kabi/MODULE/VERSION-RELEASE/{MODULES...}.ko
>
> We already discussed that last week. You are moving the versioning
> problem of the modules away from rpm to module-init-tools.
>
Yes and no. He's moving it to /sbin/weak-modules which seems like a
logical place. weak-modules has to understand how to place kernel
modules (or links to them) into the tree for depmod and friends to find
them. Right now it does this for kabi. It's not a big conceptual
stretch to think that it could do this for kmod as well.
> You need to encode evr into the path and then teach depmod or any
> helper application to order according to rpm's evr scheme.
>
Not necessarily. The helper application has to support a versioning
scheme. We can make the ondisk directory layout match the helper's
versioning scheme independent of the rpm evr. Certain versioning
schemes on the part of the helper would be easier for us to work with,
of course :-)
> It's not an improvement, it's outsourcing a packaging/versioning
> problem to the wrong domain.
module-init-tools has to start supporting some sort of versioning scheme
in order to support kabi. I'd argue that even without kabi, the tools
should support a defined order in which they will choose what kernel
modules to load. Leaving it undefined is a drawback for more than
package managers.
Axel, do you see any reason Thorsten's proposal wouldn't work?
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
