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:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1549
and in this upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155988
The upstream fix is rolled into FC >= 4 and RHEL >= 5 ... but it is not rolled into RHEL <= 4.
That leaves CentOS-4 with this bug.
----------------------------------- There are 3 options here:
1. 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).
2. Modify the kernel-2.6.spec to do what FC >= 4 does.
3. 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?
----------------------------------- 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.
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
Therefore, the people who want input into how packages are updated need to speak up. ------------------------------------ Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
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).
kernel-devel should be installed alongside, not upgraded. So if you have
kernel-a kernel-devel-a
installed and do a yum update, you should end up with
kernel-a kernel-b kernel-devel-a kernel-devel-b
installed on your machine, for example if you have to go back one kernel as a module you need doesn't compile on kernel-b. If you didn't have kernel-devel-a anymore at that point, that could get quite ugly.
- Modify the kernel-2.6.spec to do what FC >= 4 does.
I am against changing the kernel spec file. To clear up what Fedora did with their kernels: Have each kernel-devel package (kernel-devel, kernel-smp-devel, kernel-xen0-devel) also Provide: kernel-devel. This way yum sorts out that all kernel-*-devel need to be installed instead of upgraded.
- Do nothing and tell people to choose what they want by updating this
variable in /etc/yum.conf
installonlyn=
Bad idea (even if you mean installonlypkg here). It's no consistent behaviour, if kernel-devel gets installed and all other kernel-*-devel packages get updated.
By the way: If we change yum according to 1), people using the installonlyn plugin will get the kernel-*-devel package removed, when the corresponding kernel package gets removed by the package.
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
Hehe.
Cheers,
Ralph
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 11:12 -0500, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
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).
kernel-devel should be installed alongside, not upgraded. So if you have
kernel-a kernel-devel-a
installed and do a yum update, you should end up with
kernel-a kernel-b kernel-devel-a kernel-devel-b
installed on your machine, for example if you have to go back one kernel as a module you need doesn't compile on kernel-b. If you didn't have kernel-devel-a anymore at that point, that could get quite ugly.
I think I agree, but smp is not explicitly addressed by the above. My example would be: If you have
kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL (kernel-a) kernel-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL (kernel-b) kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL (kernel-smp-a) kernel-smp-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL (kernel-smp-b)
installed and do a yum update, you should end up with
kernel-devel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL (kernel-devel-a) kernel-devel-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL (kernel-devel-b) kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL (kernel-smp-devel-a) kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-42.0.3.EL (kernel-smp-devel-b)
This is accomplished for me by having the following in /etc/yum.conf
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-hugemem kernel-devel \ kernel-smp-devel
Note that the above probably needs some further work, but works-for-me currently. IMHO, the "right way" [TM] to do this would be to change the default for "installonlypkgs=" in yum.
(Any need for multiple kernel-doc versions?)
Phil
Phil Schaffner wrote:
I think I agree, but smp is not explicitly addressed by the above.
Hence Johnny's proposal (see http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1549).
This is accomplished for me by having the following in /etc/yum.conf
installonlypkgs=kernel kernel-smp kernel-hugemem kernel-devel \ kernel-smp-devel
Note that the above probably needs some further work, but works-for-me currently. IMHO, the "right way" [TM] to do this would be to change the default for "installonlypkgs=" in yum.
That would be option 1) (patch yum's config.py) :)
(Any need for multiple kernel-doc versions?)
AFAICS not. Documentation is the same for all kernels.
Cheers,
Ralph
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Phil Schaffner wrote:
I think I agree, but smp is not explicitly addressed by the above.
Indeed and I wanted to point this out as well, but you were faster ;-)
IMHO, the "right way" [TM] to do this would be to change the default for "installonlypkgs=" in yum.
I'd also vote for this as it seems (to me, at least) to be the least invasive.
(Any need for multiple kernel-doc versions?)
Hey, you were faster here too... For the small security updates (like the 42.0.2 and 42.0.3 from your example) there is probably no point to have multiple kernel-doc packages. It might be worth doing it for versions with real differences where maybe new drivers or whole subsystems (f.e. InfiniBand) are added and hopefully also related documentation, but the problem of identifying these real differences is probably not the job of "yum" (and no, I don't have an idea whose job should be...)
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com 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:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1549
and in this upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155988
The upstream fix is rolled into FC >= 4 and RHEL >= 5 ... but it is not rolled into RHEL <= 4.
That leaves CentOS-4 with this bug.
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.
but a change in yum is enough ? from the comments in RedHat Bugzilla I interprete that a change in the kernel spec is also necessary (to provide "Provides" lines), is that true?
I can understand redhat position about RHEL4 because yum is not used officially, but I can remember that centos3's kernel rpm did have patches in the spec to solve some centos bugs or necesities, and then the package was renamed to append centos3 in the name. So, do centos should make that deviation from upstrain specs just to be consistente with its own update's mechanisms? or a more specific yum-centos4 (and not so general as to honor the Provides line) patch is the way?
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.
:-)
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
jejejejejejejejeje ;-) fair enough :-)
cu roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Roger PeXa Escobio wrote:
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
- 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).
but a change in yum is enough ? from the comments in RedHat Bugzilla I interprete that a change in the kernel spec is also necessary (to provide "Provides" lines), is that true?
It is "either or". Either you add all kernel-*-devel packages to "installonlypkg" in config.py or just leave the kernel-devel package in there and let all kernel-*-devel packages Provide: kernel-devel.
So yes, it can be done by only changing yum.
So, do centos should make that deviation from upstrain specs just to be consistente with its own update's mechanisms? or a more specific yum-centos4 (and not so general as to honor the Provides line) patch is the way?
Yes, that is the question here. And I rather tamper around with yum, as this is only in CentOS and not in upstream.
Cheers,
Ralph
--- Ralph Angenendt ra+centos@br-online.de wrote:
Roger PeXa Escobio wrote:
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com
wrote:
- 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).
but a change in yum is enough ? from the comments in RedHat Bugzilla I interprete
that
a change in the kernel spec is also necessary (to provide "Provides" lines), is that true?
It is "either or". Either you add all kernel-*-devel packages to "installonlypkg" in config.py or just leave the kernel-devel package in there and let all kernel-*-devel packages Provide: kernel-devel.
I understand now :-) thanks
So yes, it can be done by only changing yum.
rhel5 will have its own version of yum, will he? so, what will be the direction of centos4's yum version after centOS5 get out? will the version for centos5 will get delivery for centos4 ? that version will be patched acconding to redhat bugzilla because the kernel spec in rhel5 will include the Provides line, so... the "how rhel5-centos5 works" thing will matter for the "how centos4 works" thing?
At this point, I vote for the solution where only the yum packages gets modified, that way centos4 will "clone" upstream (even the bugs :-) ) but centos developers should analize if this way of fix the problem is (will be) consistence with the way centos will go. Maybe mantaining an specific centos4's yum patch is not so complicate for the rest of centos4 live :-)
cu roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I vote for the version wich is closest to what the upstream vendor does, i guess that would be number 3.
Chris Johnny Hughes schrieb:
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:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1549
and in this upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155988
The upstream fix is rolled into FC >= 4 and RHEL >= 5 ... but it is not rolled into RHEL <= 4.
That leaves CentOS-4 with this bug.
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?
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.
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
Therefore, the people who want input into how packages are updated need to speak up.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
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
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:01:05AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
- Modify the kernel-2.6.spec to do what FC >= 4 does.
[...]
I think that 2 is a bad choice as it makes the CentOS kernel deviate from the upstream kernel.
But just the specfile, not the actual bits, right? And the specfile already has some specfile modifications:
* Fri Oct 06 2006 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org [2.6.9-42.0.3]
- added i586 support for CentOS - changed the key to CentOS and not redhat
I'm not sure if this or the yum hack is better, but I tend towards doing it in the kernel.
Perhaps Red Hat could be persuaded to do so in the next "u" update, as well.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
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.
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
Therefore, the people who want input into how packages are updated need to speak up.
So where are we now with this bug? Leaving it as it is doesn't look like an option, we had so far one person favoring changing the kernel and the rest looks a little bit indecisive :)
So are there any more opinions on this bug (especially from non-centos developers?).
Cheers,
Ralph
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:30:04PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt enlightened us:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
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.
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
Therefore, the people who want input into how packages are updated need to speak up.
So where are we now with this bug? Leaving it as it is doesn't look like an option, we had so far one person favoring changing the kernel and the rest looks a little bit indecisive :)
So are there any more opinions on this bug (especially from non-centos developers?).
Changing the default behavior of yum seems to make the most sense to me. We retain compatibility with upstream and still fix the problem for our users.
My $.02
--- Matt Hyclak hyclak@math.ohiou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:30:04PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt enlightened us:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
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.
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
Therefore, the people who want input into how
packages are updated need
to speak up.
So where are we now with this bug? Leaving it as
it is doesn't look like
an option, we had so far one person favoring
changing the kernel and the
rest looks a little bit indecisive :)
So are there any more opinions on this bug
(especially from non-centos
developers?).
Changing the default behavior of yum seems to make the most sense to me. We retain compatibility with upstream and still fix the problem for our users.
I am with that option too if the yum mantainer (jonny?) do not care to carry a yum patch for the rest of centos4 lives (centos3 do not have that problem? I do not have anyone to test :-( )
cu roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
-
Bogdan Costescu -
Christoph Maser -
Johnny Hughes -
Matt Hyclak -
Matthew Miller -
Phil Schaffner -
Ralph Angenendt -
Roger Pe�a Escobio -
William L. Maltby