On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 9:54 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 11/25/22 11:40, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi! The following is all nitpicking. I hope it won't cause a
> bikeshedding discussion, I'm not going to fight for any of this, I just
> want to get it of my chest.
Sorry, I do have somewhat of a bikeshed suggestion:
> On 25.11.22 11:09, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>> So how about splitting 'kernel-core' into a modules and a kernel
binary
>>>> package? Like this:
>>>>
>>>> kernel-modules-core - the modules from current
'kernel-core'
>>>> kernel-modules-standard - current 'kernel-modules' renamed
(maybe
>>>> skip rename, but I think it'll be less
>>>> confusing that way).
>>>> kernel-modules-{extra,internal} - no changes
>
> I always found "internal" confusing, because it makes my head go
> "internal to what? The Kernel?". Hence while we're reshuffling this,
why
> not make it more obvious what this package contains and call it
> something like "kernel-modules-testing" or something like that?
I agree that internal is confusing. But testing reminds me of
updates-testing, so I find -testing this somewhat confusing too.
Usually packaged test programs are called just tests, so maybe we can
go with: "kernel-modules-tests" or "kernel-modules-selftests" ?
The "internal" bit is a leftover RHELism, and it is internal as in not
shipped. Obviously this does not translate well to Fedora as we do
ship them. While I am fine with a rename, I am not sure what amount of
effort is actually required there because tooling is in place to
ensure that the package doesn't get included or shipped for RHEL
customers.
Justin
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>