[Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposal: reject the one-spec approach

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Axel Thimm schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> There is exactly one (1) package in Fedora and lives only in FE5.
>> +2 more in cvs that are not build ATM (thinkpad-lkmod and lirc-kmod)
>> +7 under review
>> +6 in lvn
> -67 in ATrpms
> 
> Looks like you're raising this to an ATrpms vs livna issue? I thought
> we wanted to merge ...

I hope we can still merge.

>>> This guerilla tactics are becoming ugly.
>> That's why I think it's time that spot as leader of this group IMHO 
>> jumps in. Otherwise we waste a lot of time arguing without results.
> 
> When he showed he tends to a uname-r-in-version solution you seem to
> have activated all your muscles against it even though you promised
> otherwise before.

I activated all my muscles for a complete switch from the current kmod 
standard to something else because

- the current kmod standard was developed in half a year with a lot of 
work involved from me, scop, jeremy, warren, f13 and others. jcmaster 
(and other people I never have heard of) invested a lot of time in it 
for RHEL. Throwing that completely away would be painful, but I would do 
that if there are good reasons for it. I can't see them.

Question to scop, jeremy, warren, f13, jcmaster: Do you see any reasons 
why we should throw away everything?

- throwing it away this short before RHEL beta1 and FC6test3 is IMHO not 
acceptable -- especially because we don't have many experiences with it 
(well, scop, I and some others have experiences with the "uname -r" 
scheme, but at least mine were not as good as yours).


Back to the uname-r-in-version thing: Well, I think the 
uname-r-in-version solution is not the best solution. But as I said 
earlier in this thread:

"0" (e.g. undecided) currently if we only work for Fedora here. But that 
would mean that we change kmodtool to handle it as spot cuggested in the 
wiki.

"-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.

Note the word "currently" and "undecided".

> You still have your chance to reject it in fesco.

I'm not doing the FESCo decisions alone.

CU
thl