On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:04:24PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 11:26 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> I've created a wiki page outlining the kmdl design as well as showing
> the flaws of the current kernel module scheme ("kmod"):
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls
Thank you for taking the time to do this. I honestly think it will
be
helpful for the Packaging Committee to have this information in front of
them.
Rather than trying to replace kmod with kmdl, I'd rather look at the key
changes that we should consider making.
The biggest one, IMHO, is overloading name with the kernel version. I've
been one of the staunchest opponents of doing this, because I think its
ugly, a hack, and causes problems.
With all that said: I now think it is necessary for kernel module
packages. I did a lot of thinking and reading over the last several
days, and overloading the name works. We know it works, whether done
with rpm by hand or via depsolvers (yum).
I'm glad I'm getting things rolling finally :)
But please consider the following: Changing some key elements like
uname-r-in-name and one-specfile you inevitably end very near to kmdl
scheme. If these idioms are decided upon to be used in the future it
would be a pity to create yet-another-standard if the one existing
(kmdl) really covers everything we wish.
It's also a scheme in use by ATrpms since quite some time and a
vehicle for me to push some kernel modules to FE (provided the
legal/quality issues are covered).
That having said if something needs improvement in the kmdl scheme I'm
open to suggestions. But it would really be a pity to come so close
and still have a forked scheme.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net