[Fedora-packaging] Re: kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 07:20:56PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 01:21 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:29:08AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 14:04 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:26 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > > I've created a wiki page outlining the kmdl design as well as showing
> > > > > the flaws of the current kernel module scheme ("kmod"):
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
> > > 
> > > One thing completely missing from that is debuginfo packages.
> > 
> > Debuginfo packages are handled in the kmdl scheme, I just didn't
> > outline the details in the wiki to keep the document from growing
> > larger than a packaging comittee member is expected to invest in
> > reading.
> 
> Without that information, folks who really want to review the suggestion
> now need to abort the review due to incompleteness, invest much more
> time than reading it would take in (re?)inventing how it could be done,
> or take things for granted.

Until now I'm fighting the uname-r-in-name and one-specfile battles, I
really don't want to distract people from these issues until they are
done with.

To answer your question on debuginfos: You simply change the name of
the debuginfo package to match that of the kmdl, e.g. one debuginfo
package per kmdl package.

> As discussed previously in private mail, if you don't have time to
> document something, just upload a few example packages built for let's
> say two successive FC kernels (complete with SRPMS, macro definitions,
> binaries and debuginfos) somewhere and post a link to that somewhere in
> public.

You mean like http://ATrpms.net/? The kmdl scheme as proposed is in
production there for quite a while. Due to size constraints I don't
keep too many kmdls for different kernels around. The currently
supported kernels are:

    fc5/2.6.17-1.2157_1.rhfc5.cubbi_suspend2 \
    fc5/2.6.17-1.2157_0.99.rhfc5.cubbi_suspend2_8k \
    fc4/2.6.17-1.2142_1.rhfc4.cubbi_swsusp2 \
    fc4/2.6.17-1.2142_0.99.rhfc4.cubbi_swsusp2_8k \
    el4/2.6.9-34.0.2.EL \
    el3/2.4.21-47.EL \
    fc6/2.6.17-1.2530.fc6 \
    fc5/2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 \
    fc4/2.6.17-1.2142_FC4 \
    fc3/2.6.12-2.3.legacy_FC3 \
    fc2/2.6.10-2.3.legacy_FC2 \
    fc1/2.4.22-1.2199.8.legacy.nptl \
    rh9/2.4.20-46.9.legacy \
    rh7.3/2.4.20-46.7.legacy \

So if you want to compare kernel modules upgradablity you can either
pick a module across two releases, or perhaps assume that the swsusp2
kernels are upgrades of the others (technically from rpm's POV they
are, that's why they are not shipped in ATrpms "stable", but
"testing").
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060809/90c78ee7/attachment.sig>