[CentOS-devel] kernel-*-devel and yum updates for CentOS-4.x

William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com
Mon Oct 23 00:22:03 UTC 2006

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:
> 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?

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>


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list