[Fedora-packaging] Re: Mail voting on kmdl adoption

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:31:04AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 August 2006 08:14, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > Both choices have their weak and strong points. If it's impossible
> > > to decide based on technical merits alone... flip a coin or
> > > something, really.
> > 
> > Or continue to use the current one that is being used by current
> > packages in Extras, and in RHEL.
> 
> and which cannot be used for manual rpm installations, breaks all
> depsolvers, endangers your running setup or the total upgradablity of
> the system and the ugly workarounds trying to fix this turn out to
> introduce more bugs that they fix making the depsolver support a
> maintenance nightmare.

To be fair, the only change to kmod that would be necessary to remove
all of this "it won't work for manual rpm installations" is the addition
of kver in the Name field.

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).
In fact, I suspect that kmodtool could even include the necessary magic.

~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!