On Friday 19 August 2005 01:00, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:16 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> My example was not perfectly well chosen. The idea was to have provider
> prefixes like adaptec, nvidia, ati and similar, so an example out-of-line
> aic7xxx upgrade would be adaptec-aic7xxx-8.9.10-2.6.13_99_smp-3, etc.
I don't see it serving any purpose. I don't want to have a field that
people are trying to shoe-horning ugliness into. This just opens the
door to rpms with horrible provider prefixes, and rpms with %{name}:
InternationalBusinessMachinesJapanCOPYRIGHT2005ALLRIGHTSRESERVED-mwave-3.14
15972-2.6.13_99_smp
... when all we really need is:
kernel-module-mwave
Great, thanks for the thoughtful example. I was talking about a prefix from
the LANANA provider name registry,
http://lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html, and I'm also aware that many
potential providers don't have an entry there, yet. Also see
http://lsbbook.gforge.freestandards.org/lanana.html about LSB's package
naming recommendations.
The two proposals, next to each other, and even for the same example, seem to
be:
Name: kernel-module-aic7xxx
Version: 6.2.36
Release: 1.2.6.13_rc6_1_smp
vs.
Name: adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.36
Version: 2.6.13_rc6_1_smp
Release: 1
> > > The driver name, driver version, and kernel release
($KERNELRELEASE)
> > > are also stored differently in rpm tags: our build system likes to be
> > > able to freely assign the package release number, so we don't store
> > > extra information there. Rather, we put the driver version in the
> > > Name, and the kernel release in the Version:
> >
> > Hmm. Again, I don't want to overload %{name}. That's not what its
there
> > for, imho.
>
> What makes %version or %release more appropriate for overloading? With
> the driver version as part of %version or %release, you can't easily
> offer packages for more than one version of a driver for the same kernel,
> and yet have working updates. I would be surprised if you didn't ever
> have this situation with RHEL.
Users won't expect to have the name be overloaded. Users want to search
for "kernel-module-foo", query the rpmdb for kernel-module-foo. Not to
mention the nightmare of tracking it in bugzilla, and generating massive
amounts of unnecessary SRPMs.
Putting aside FUD for a second, where do you see problems querying the rpm
database, or in Bugzilla? And why do you think the number of source rpms
would change at all?
And we can certainly offer multiple packages.
kernel-module-foo-1.2-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 1)
kernel-module-foo-1.2-2.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 2)
kernel-moudle-foo-1.3-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.3, build 1)
You can have multiple packets next to each other, but rpm --freshen (and other
tools using the same logic) won't work as expected anymore: you will always
end up with the most recent driver version. Sticking with the same driver
version by default will break.
-- Andreas.