Re: Re: Zero-tolerance educational methods for promoting questionable policies???

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 08:43, Panu Matilainen wrote:

> Without getting to the politics of this, fedora.us apt nowadays supports
> the kernel-module-foo-`uname -r` packages almost transparently. Means
> 
> - 'apt-get install kernel-module-alsa' will fetch you a suitable version 
> of the package, never mind the ugly full name
> - Upgrading (well, installing new) kernel will pull along new versions of 
> any kernel-module packages you have installed for the new kernel (with 
> "install kernel" and with "dist-upgrade")
> 
> Users do love it :) Oh and nothing fedora.us specific there (other than 
> the exact package naming which has been proposed and discussed here as 
> well), the lua-magic needed for can be used with any newish apt version.

Yeah, I must second this.  Lately with some of the latest kernel
upgrades, I rebuilt all of my kernel module packages with mach before
upgrading my actual kernel, and then the new packages are locally
available on my machine, and then when I did apt-get upgrade, it pulled
in everything fine.  My personal packages adhere to f.us's naming
strategy.

In the case where a package wasn't rebuilt yet, apt-get warned me of the
fact that it didn't have a package for that kernel version.

So, from a user's perspective, this is EXACTLY what we want.

Dag, Matthias, I know you think the kernel-version-in-name is ugly, but
I feel the onus is on you guys to get the tools fixed to support
something else, and at that point in time I'll happily switch over.

But today, it's been over a year, there's still none of the packaging
projects that have finally managed to give users what they want -
working kernel modules.

So from the perspective of someone not involved in the discussion that
was going on here, it looks to me like the current solution is
a) axel accepts kernel-module instead of kmdl
b) matthias and dag accept kernel-uname-in-package-name
c) repositories pull in panu's lua magic to handle it nicely.

After that, we have more than enough time to come up with "the proper
fix" (which from the last round of discussing seemed to indicate it
needed fixes all the way down to rpm - anyone care to take bets on when
we can rely on this to be present in user's systems ?) and live with the
perceived ugliness of some packages which users aren't one bit concerned
about in the first place :)

Any user will tell you that they will prefer the ugliness of an rpm file
name which they never get to see anyway over the ugliness of trying to
compile the damn module by hand, and after lots of fiddling get it
somewhat working, only to find out that the next apt-get upgrade broke
it :) And oh, it happened to be the network device, so there's no way to
get the kernel packages needed to rebuild it :)

Thomas


Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
Cause baby ooh
if heaven calls I'm coming too
Just like you said
You leave my life I'm better off dead
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/