On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Right. When I said I had kernel-core and kernel-drivers, I wasn't
>> being theoretical. I already did the work in the spec file to split
>> it into kernel-core and kernel-drivers. The kernel package becomes a
>> metapackage that requires the other two, so that existing installs and
>> anaconda don't have to change (assuming I did thinks correctly).
>> Cloud can just specify kernel-core in the kickstart or whatever.
>
> Does yum's kernel-handling magic need to change to handle this? Probably you
> have already thought of that.
I gave it some thought. I haven't tested anything. Existing magic
should work for most installs since there's still a "kernel" package
and that's what yum keys off of. If/when we do this, I'll certainly
test more carefully to make sure.
That brings up a question though, how often would cloud expect to do a
yum update of individual packages as opposed to just updating the
entire image? If we expect the 3 kernel magic to work there, then
some changes to yum/dnf may be required given that Cloud would be
explicitly specifying "kernel-core" and not "kernel".
Yesterday, I updated to Josh's 2.5 kernel, then I removed kernel and
kernel-drivers, only leaving kernel-core. Today, I again updates, this
time 3.8 being available. Now guess what? The "install instead of
update" magic worked. I know have both kernel-core packages. So I
figure yum works this magic with any kernel* package.
So it would seem no change to yum is necessary after all. Going to
reach out to the yum developers to find out the details. Also, whether
dnf does the exact same or not.
-- Sandro