[OpenAFS] Re: kmod-openafs versioning on RHEL5
Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:40:37 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:44:26AM +0000, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2008, at 09:02, Axel Thimm wrote:
>> 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>=20
>>> 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.
> Erm. No. The problem here was that the OP had built his first kernel modu=
> (and userland) from openafs-1.4.5-2.el5, and his second kernel module fro=
> openafs-1.4.5-1.el5. The upgrade failure was entirely because the second=
> module was built from an earlier OpenAFS RPM, and not any problems with t=
> uname -r location in the kmod scheme. You may be right about the benefits=
> of kmdl vs kmod, but they just aren't relevant to this case.
Well, the OP wrote in the first post: "Yum refuses to install the
package claiming that kmod-openafs-1.4.5-184.108.40.206_53.1.4.el5 is newer
This is 1.4.5-2 built for 2.6.18_53.1.4.el5 vs 1.4.5-1 built for
2.6.18_53.1.13.el5. These builds are for *different kernels* and
having a depsolver forbidding to use different versions of the module
for different kernels is a bug.
Building foo-1 vs foo-2 on different kernels is a valid case and
sometimes even required (for example wireless drivers for the
different RHEL5 kernels with differently pacthed wireless subsystems)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----