On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 16:46 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 12:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > I setup an executive summary of the comparison for you and for other > > people external to the discussion until now who would like to join in > > on Friday: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls/kmods_vs_kmdls_at_a_glance > > I'm almost certainly unable to join any meeting before next week Similar applies to me. I'll probably be unable to join any meeting before mid Sept. unless it takes place late at night CET. > To reiterate: if consensus says change is needed, and there's competent > manpower available to take care of things *soon*, so be it. The only > things I feel strongly about are that rejecting module packages from > FC/FE altogether would be profoundly odd at this point, and that the > scope of the discussion needs to be limited to whether uname-r gets > moved to the packages' names and its direct unavoidable consequences -- > the only real technical design issue. Everything else in the "kmdl" > proposal is more or less cosmetics and implementation details, and > adopting it would mean throwing away quite a bit of work (reinventing > the wheel from the POV of the current scheme and its adopters) from > several parties for questionable gain. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/KernelModulesWithKverInName > This draft has potential. I disagree on this. It is way too narrowly focused on implementation details of kmod. What we needed is strict and narrow conventions on kernel-module NEVRs to assure proper interaction with installers. All the rest is implementation details. Forcing a specific template to me is actionism, because kernel-module rpms are NOT really different from other RPMs, IMO. They are more complex and require strict conventions on their "rpm API", that's all. /me ducks Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
