On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these
two packages:
>>>> - kernel-drivers[1]
>>>> - kernel-modules-extra
>>>>
>>>> Are these[1] modules passed the driving test?
>>>> Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again?
>>>> Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers"
is the proper name.
>>>
>>>
>>> I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I
>>> agree and I do not like this inconsistency. The new one should be
>>> called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be
>>> renamed kernel-drivers-extra.
>
> Right. This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a
> month. Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to
> get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage
> name. In other words, it's a PITA.
I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a
discussion about the colour of the bike shed.
... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be
repainted after the fact. In the future, please don't worry about
bike shedding. Nobody else does.
> Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing
> subpackage installed can deal with it manually.
I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide
updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out
>> I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are
>> drivers.
>
> This is out for a vote.
Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*
I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting
isn't going to fix anything. Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I
have another bug to fix first.
josh