[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

On 29/04/14 22:41, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As part of the F21 "Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud" Feature[1],
> I've committed and pushed the kernel packaging split up into
> kernel-core and kernel-drivers subpackages.  For those of you running
> rawhide, this really shouldn't be a major impact at all.  When you do
> a yum update, you will see "kernel", "kernel-core", and
> "kernel-drivers" packages being installed.  The end result should be
> in line with today's rawhide kernels.
>
> Note: Unless you're using a typical VM or Cloud image, don't uninstall
> the kernel or kernel-drivers packages.  The machine may boot with just
> kernel-core, but it will lack drivers for a significant portion of
> bare-metal hardware without kernel-drivers installed.
>
> Despite best efforts in testing, it's always possible a bug or two
> snuck through.  In the event that you do have an issue with this,
> please file a bug against the kernel package.
>
> josh
>
> [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud

Just wondering how this will (or will not) affect kernel-module-extras ?

Currently there is a dependency (largely for backwards compatibility 
purposes) on kernel-module-extras from gfs2-utils and I'm wondering if 
that will need to be changed (or dropped) as a result of this,

Steve.

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 29/04/14 22:41, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As part of the F21 "Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud" Feature[1],
>> I've committed and pushed the kernel packaging split up into
>> kernel-core and kernel-drivers subpackages.  For those of you running
>> rawhide, this really shouldn't be a major impact at all.  When you do
>> a yum update, you will see "kernel", "kernel-core", and
>> "kernel-drivers" packages being installed.  The end result should be
>> in line with today's rawhide kernels.
>>
>> Note: Unless you're using a typical VM or Cloud image, don't uninstall
>> the kernel or kernel-drivers packages.  The machine may boot with just
>> kernel-core, but it will lack drivers for a significant portion of
>> bare-metal hardware without kernel-drivers installed.
>>
>> Despite best efforts in testing, it's always possible a bug or two
>> snuck through.  In the event that you do have an issue with this,
>> please file a bug against the kernel package.
>>
>> josh
>>
>>
>> [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud
>
>
> Just wondering how this will (or will not) affect kernel-module-extras ?

Great question.  It won't affect it.

> Currently there is a dependency (largely for backwards compatibility
> purposes) on kernel-module-extras from gfs2-utils and I'm wondering if that
> will need to be changed (or dropped) as a result of this,

Nothing at the moment.  Later this week I'm going to look at enabling
auto-provides for kernel modules in the various kernel packages.  This
will make situations like this much more flexible, as gfs2-utils will
be able to Requires: gfs2.ko (or whatever it is) instead of the
package name.  That will allow us to move modules around without
breaking packages, and potentially get ride of k-m-e down the road.

Once the auto-provides are enabled, I'll go through the tracker bug
Bruno has open and fix up the userspace package requires.

josh

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 07:56:29 -0400,
   Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>Nothing at the moment.  Later this week I'm going to look at enabling
>auto-provides for kernel modules in the various kernel packages.  This
>will make situations like this much more flexible, as gfs2-utils will
>be able to Requires: gfs2.ko (or whatever it is) instead of the
>package name.  That will allow us to move modules around without
>breaking packages, and potentially get ride of k-m-e down the road.
>
>Once the auto-provides are enabled, I'll go through the tracker bug
>Bruno has open and fix up the userspace package requires.

Thanks for this update. I was going to nag about this soon, if someone 
else hadn't.

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 07:56:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Nothing at the moment.  Later this week I'm going to look at enabling
> auto-provides for kernel modules in the various kernel packages.  This
> will make situations like this much more flexible, as gfs2-utils will
> be able to Requires: gfs2.ko (or whatever it is) instead of the
> package name.  That will allow us to move modules around without
> breaking packages, and potentially get ride of k-m-e down the road.

That would be useful for libguestfs too.  It has a pretty well defined
list of kernel modules that it needs.

> Once the auto-provides are enabled, I'll go through the tracker bug
> Bruno has open and fix up the userspace package requires.

Which is the tracker bug?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 18:18:43 +0100,
   "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>Which is the tracker bug?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058331

I added everything that depended on kernel_modules_extra. There might 
be other things that should be changed, that depend on modules that 
are currently in kernel-drivers in case the modules move from one 
to the other.

[Cluster-devel] kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:24:14PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 18:18:43 +0100,
>   "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >Which is the tracker bug?
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058331
> 
> I added everything that depended on kernel_modules_extra. There
> might be other things that should be changed, that depend on modules
> that are currently in kernel-drivers in case the modules move from
> one to the other.

Thanks.  I think that particular bug isn't relevant to libguestfs.

Adding 'Requires: foo.ko, bar.ko' will be possible.  Whether it will
make libguestfs pull in a smaller kernel sub-dependency is unlikely.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.org