On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:44:56AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 19:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> o The 'only-last-kernel-supported' simply becomes
> 'only-last-kabi-supported'. For Fedora it's the same anyway.
> So you still have issues with
> - no (security) updates for old kernels (or kabis)
Okay. I haven't seen anything to contradict this yet, only a conflict
over whether this is a problem or not. (If I'm wrong, somebody point me
to the archives or restate the rebuttal)
Even if kmdls were accepted, are we planning on having the buildsystem
build for multiple kernels?
> - old kernels/kabis can get their module nuked or effectively
> disabled.
>
How?
Will not get overwritten (which is how I think the term "nuked" has been
used in this thread.)
I answered to this on fedora-devel. I also added this to the wiki. But
still let's give an example (versions are faked and simplified, I
don't want to go hunting them, but the example is bitter real):
ipw2200-1 requires userland package ipw2200-firmware-1
We have two kernels, "a" the old one, "b" the new one. So kmod would
deliver something like
ipw2200-kmod-1-a and
ipw2200-kmod-1-b
For the two kernels before the module upgrade. Now the following three
packages hit the repo
ipw2200-kmod-2-a and
ipw2200-kmod-2-b
ipw2200-firmware-2
And the kmods require the new firmware.
In the kmdl scheme they would both get installed and the old ones
uninstalled (same for the firmware). %post %postun would also perform
the proper install/upgrade distinction (another thing kmods fail, you
cannot know whether this is an upgrade of install in the specfile, but
that's another story).
yum + the current yum plugn support will only try to install/upgrade
ipw2200-kmod-2-b and ipw2200-firmware-2, kernel "a" became invisible
to the upgrade.
But ipw2200-kmod-1-a has a hard dependency on ipw2200-firmware-1 which
is just being upgraded to a new version. Therefore the only way out is
to uninstall ipw2200-kmod-1-a.
So you have your old kernel's kmdo nuked.
Effectively disabled: What leads you to that conclusion?
If the dependency was (wrongly) not strict, then the kmod is not
nuked, but does not work anymore due to the new firmware
=> effectively disabled.
> o Currently there is a file conflicst guard of not having
different
> modules for the same kernel coinstalled. The disambiguation in the
> file path lifts this safety pin and suddenly we can end up with
> several different module versions for the same kernel!!!
But they are not being used. If we treat the kernel modules the same
as
the kernel itself, then this is expected.
No, you're fallen for the dual nature of kernel modules. They carry a
kernel evr and need to be coinstallable wrt that, but they carry their
own evr, too, which needs to be in upgrade-mode like all other
packages.
Any argument to not do so would propagate to all other packages, too
(hey, what if ipw2200-2 is broken, I want a fallback to ipw2200-1 vs
hey, what if openoffice-3.0.1 is borken, I want a fallback to
openoffice-3.0.0).
> And please stop throwing new kernel modules schemes to me :=)
The problem is we're here debating 1) Can kmods be saved and 2) if they
can't be saved, do we want kmdls to replace them verbatim?
So as you throw problems at the new proposals, people are going to
update the proposals to try to fix those problems. In the end we'll all
agree that there is an actual problem that no amount of fixing can
actually solve, or we'll look at the two proposals and say this pile of
hacks is less appealing to me than this one for [insert arbitrary reason
here].
Agreed, but I expect some more homework being done before throwing it
out. I usually spend more time in writing an analysis of those hourly
proposals than it took the author to think about them.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net