On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:09:22PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Axel Thimm schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:09:48PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> o The 'only-last-kernel-supported' simply becomes
> 'only-last-kabi-supported'. For Fedora it's the same anyway.
> So you still have issues with
> - no (security) updates for old kernels (or kabis)
If we really want to support older kernels then we need "uname -r" (or
kabi, or another identifier) in the %{NAME} *or* a plugin that handles
the stuff manually. I think I prefer the "uname -r/kabi" approach in
that case.
The question is: do we want to build new kernel modules for old kernels
that might have known security problems?
Do we want to keep those kernels in the repo? Whatever the policy for
kernels it mirrors to the kernel module support. If a kernel is not
worth installing, remove it from the repo and the associated kmdls.
Building modules for all the kernels we ever shipped
No, that's not the idea. Only what is considered a sane transition
time from kernel to kernel.
Axel, sorry, I'm not sure if I understand that
"security" reference
above. I understood this currently like this: problem in module -> push
out a updated module and the latest kernel gets a fixed module, olders
remain unfixed. But hey, older kernels often (not always) had security
problems in any case -- that's why there was a new one. Or did I get
something wrong here?
In Fedora??? 30% of kernel updates are not security related, and often
some kernels are brown bag releases, so many people back up to the
previous kernel. Supporting the last kernel is important.
> - old kernels/kabis can get their module nuked or effectively
> disabled.
Nope.
Yep.
> o Currently there is a file conflicst guard of not having
different
> modules for the same kernel coinstalled. The disambiguation in the
> file path lifts this safety pin and suddenly we can end up with
> several different module versions for the same kernel!!!
Nope, /sbin/weak-modules {cs}hould handle this.
So adding evr semantics to module-init-tools? BTW where is the epoch
in your file path suggestion? ...
Gotcha! :)
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net