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

[Jack Neely]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:56:15PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.

Again, show me how kmdl scales.  A university/enterprise environment is
not a 3rd party extras repository.  

> 
> 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.

You haven't addressed all my points either.

> 
> 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



> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging


-- 
Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>
Campus Linux Services Project Lead
Information Technology Division, NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89