On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 10:01 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Yum does not install kernel-smp-devel (or kernel-hugemem-devel, kernel- largesmp-devel), but it upgrades them.
Yum does install kernel-devel, and it does not upgrade it.
Yum should be consistent in how kernel-devel files are handled.
This issue is addressed in this CentOS bug: <snip bug refs, etc.>
There are 3 options here:
- Patch CentOS-4 yum to make yum install all kernel-*-devel files like
it does for kernel-devel (or the reverse ... make kernel-devel and upgrade like the other files).
Modify the kernel-2.6.spec to do what FC >= 4 does.
Do nothing and tell people to choose what they want by updating this
variable in /etc/yum.conf
installonlyn=
I think that 2 is a bad choice as it makes the CentOS kernel deviate from the upstream kernel.
I think that 3 is a better choice than 2 ... but I think 1 is the optimal choice. That yum needs to be updated to treat kernel-*-devel files like it treats kernel-devel.
What does everyone else think?
I almost always vote for the solution indicated by "rule of least surprises". What is that in this case? Depends on who you are what your background is?
I would *guess* the fewest "support requests" would occur if the installation of any *dev* for the kernel installed any needed predecessors. Installations and upgrades should then track.
Since upstream doesn't do yum, no concern about breakage? I don't think there should be any gripes if the CentOS-specific install/upgrade process followed its own path. It's not really deviating from upstream in what is available/delivered any more than using YUM already diverges. It's just doing a little better job of being consistent in the installation/upgrade process.
If the spec is modified to accomplish this, it just means the bug is fixed in CentOS a little earlier and all CentOS users and support folks benefit. But that seems a more "serious" divergence as you now have to maintain that difference from upstream. Not so with yum: there is no equivalent upstream?
Fewest surprises there. But I'm basically ignorant of all the ramifications and details.
Note: This is my attempt to solicit input for package changes from the public and not make unilateral decisions and push them with only the developers present.
I didn't think Texans caved so easily! ;-)
If there is no discussion of this item on this list by non-centos developers, then I will revert back to making bug changes based on only what the developers think :P
They do?! :=))
<snip>
Johnny Hughes
<snip sig stuff>
-- Bill