On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:34 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi all,
there is currently a discussion about replacing the current kernel module scheme ("kmod") with a new one ("kmdls"). This is because the current scheme has some unfixable flaws. The proposed new scheme is the one used at ATrpms, so if you ever used a kernel module package from there you know how it is setup.
The kmdl approach has several nice features other than being resistant to the design issues of the current setup.
It is an interface/implementation design that can actually even be used for the current (broken) setup. The specfile remains invariant.
It uses one specfile/src.rpm for both userland and kernel modules, e.g. one set of sources/patches/changelogs/bugzilla entries/owners.
It is kernel and kernel-flavour agnostic, the same specfile/src.rpm can be used for any kernel/flavour combination, even for such that are yet to come.
Has full yum-support with a 99-line python plugin, works even w/o the plugin with a couple more keystrokes.
Is field-proven for several years and managed to never have to change the interface!
More details are on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
It is important for FC6 and RHEL5 to make a decision on adopting it. Currently GFS is being packaged in the old scheme which is known to exhibit several flaws.
An argument against adopting kmdls presented by Thorsten Leemhuis is that
- it's too late now to fix it, we should live on with kmod bugs for RHEL5's life-cycle (ending 2012 ...)
Fedora is _not_ RHEL. Period. If they happen to use the same packaging scheme for modules, fine. That doesn't mean that Fedora cannot change it's standards during a particular RHEL's lifetime.
Therefore, I see no urgency in getting this changed. If kmdls is truly a better way, then it can be adapted when it has been fully discussed.
josh