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

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:43:45PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> +/-0 currently if we only work for Fedora here.

0 is equal to -1 in fedora-packaging

> -1 currently if we want the same stuff in RHEL and Fedora -- the "uname
> -r" is not that important with the kabi stuff and the problem should be
> fixed properly.

kabi argumentation was shown to not lead anywhere, not even with RHEL.

> - changes only in the kmod will require that the userland packages gets
> rebuild, too.

Changes to glibc-devel will require rebuilding glibc, too. Should we
decompose each package into that many src.rpm as it has suppackages???

> - Because the name of the SRPM doesn't change when you rebuild stuff for
> a newly released kernel the name of the debuginfo packages does also not
> change.

That was addressed by Ville on this list and the full sane and
elegant solution already presented. So the rest of the argument is
bogus.

> > c) kernel module scheme needs to be kernel agnostic (both version
> >    *and* flavour)
> 
> +1 -- They are agnostic already. The current hardwiring in the spec file
> is only a temporary solution [...]

It's hardcoded in the guidelines.

> > d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
> >    (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
> >    ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
> 
> -1 -- we took about half a year to develop the current standard for FE.
> I'm not going to switch to something where besides Axel no one of the
> people around has practical experiences
> 
> - in a hurry
> 
> - without getting a buy-in from Jeremy, f13, davej, warren and jcmasters
> 
> - after test2
> 
> - shortly before RHEL beta 1 (or is it out already?)
> 
> I'd even tend to say: We shouldn't change what was discussed below "a)"
> (see above) at this point. To risky IMHO.

Are you are trying to subvert the voting by raising the bar too high?
The current scheme was proven to be broken, there is nothing more that
can be broken, the kmdl scheme was presented and is in practice at
ATrpms for *years*. So you have both theoretical and practical proof
on the benefits.

And please consider that you are endorsing a standard for RHEL that is
known to break the yum kmod plugin when it comes to GFS/cman
dependencies, which is the only place where FC or RHEL really use
kernel modules.

Should Fedora's heritage to RHEL be a completely broken cluster/gfs
setup or should we wait until RHEL's QA addresses upgradability, and
dumps the current scheme then? Or worse, have the customers find out?
-- 
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/20060814/9c926dc9/attachment.sig>