[OpenAFS] Re: kmod-openafs versioning on RHEL5

Axel Thimm openafs-info@openafs.org
Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:02:45 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 08:01:46PM -0400, Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:49:48PM -0800, Darren Patterson wrote:
> >  > After building new kmod packages for the latest RHEL5 kernel I disco=
> >  > that rpm is very unhappy with the naming convention.  Yum refuses to
> >  > install the package claiming that kmod-openafs-1.4.5-
=2Eel5 is
> >  > newer than kmod-openafs-1.4.5-  To install this
> >  > package I have to use rpm with "--force".
> >  >
> >  > Red Hat updates their kernels in the above fashion regularly so I
> >  > anticipate this problem will continue to crop up in the not too dist=
> >  > future.
> >  >
> >  > Before I create my own SRPM to work around this issue, are there pla=
ns to
> >  > deal with this?
> >
> >  IMHO the kmod is flawed and what you see is the missing
> >  uname-r-in-name part of it.
> YHO doesn't help that he's trying to use an older minor revision of
> the RPMs he's using with a newer minor revision of modules; The kernel
> version is entirely irrelevant.
> foo-1-(`uname -r`) would still be older than foo-2-(`uname -r`).

No, look closer and you'll see that he has two different uname-r, not
the same. And by the very construction of the uname-r-in-name scheme
this comparison cannot and shouldn't be done.

And "1" and "2" would be placed in the version/release field, where
they belong, not the name part as it is implied above, but this will
still make them upgrade-path separate packages. In the kmdl world
these would be

name                            - vr

openafs-kmdl-2.6.18_53.1.4.el5  - 1.4.5-2


openafs-kmdl-2.6.18_53.1.13.el5 - 1.4.5-1

As you see neither rpm, nor yum, nor smart/apt and any other depsolver
will consider to compare these two. The kmdl scheme works w/o special
treatment for each depsolver.

Do take some time investigating the above writeup in the Fedora
wiki. Many people have found it quite valuable and even if not
everybody converts to kmdls at the very leats the uname-r-in-name part
has become undisputable by now. Even by the former kmod authors.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)