[Fedora-packaging] Re: fedorakmod.py unfixable

[Jack Neely]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:32:20PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 05:33:10PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > can you please answer on the statement below that wrt fedorakmod.py
> > plugin if the wrongly tagged kernel module packages pull in other
> > packages through dependencies you're hosed up?
> 
> 
> > Please make a statement about that as this demonstrates that the
> > plugin has unfixable flaws - which is neither yum's not the plugin's
> > fault, it is just the mirroring of allowing an rpm-incompatible
> > kernel module scheme.
> > 
> > I hope the correctness and maintenance issues here will persuade the
> > last kmdl opponent. :)
> 
> I moved the issues to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
> 
> Please check the raised issues and make a statement. The
> kmod+yum+anyplugin setup just cannot work and it's the best for the
> packaging folks to hear that from a third person, too. Thanks.
> -- 
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Axel,

I apologize for not making your requested statement earlier.  I hope
this email proves to be acceptable.

I have read your Wiki article and I find several points that I do not
agree with.  I will focus on one of these points here.  You state, in 
bold text, "[kmdl] doesn't have any design bugs."  In fact, Seth, 
Jesse, Thorsten, myself and others have pointed out multiple times flaws 
in the kmdl kernel module packaging scheme.  Some of these flaws equally 
affect both kmod and kmdl.

Having read your numerous posts to this list regarding kmdl, the wiki
article you have authored, and your Yum plugin to support kmdl I see a
common theme.  You are unwilling to admit that your scheme may not be
absolutely perfect and are unwilling to work with others to compromise.
In fact, Thorsten attempted to compromise again with you this morning
and you immediately refused.

The last two emails that you have sent in this thread addressed to me
take this one step farther.  You have requested that I make a statement
regarding issues you have with the workings of the fedorakmod.py plugin.
In and of itself, that is fine.  However, you also tell me in both
emails what my statement is to be and in the first justify why I will
say such a statement.  I find this attitude hostile and offensive.

My statement is thus:  Many people have spent a large amount of time
working with the kmod standard in developing the standard to this point
and preparing FC6, FE6, and RHEL5 to make use of this standard.  The
kmod standard represents a significant step forward in kernel module
packaging compared to older methods that I and many others have used in
the past.  The proposed kmdl scheme does not offer a significant
improvement in design or practice compared to the kmod standard.  It is
simply a different selection of pros and cons.

Jack 

> --
> 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