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

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.c
entos.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 
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 10:01 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:

<snip>

> 3. Do nothing and tell people to choose what they want
by updating this
> variable in /etc/yum.conf
> 
> installonlyn=

That should be:

installonlypkgs=

<snip>
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> -----------------------------------
> 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).

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.

> 2. 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.

> 3. 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

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

-----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.c
entos.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 
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-develcentos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFFO7C0sLjW0HYht7URAoUGAJ9nEhN1ZE/GypPVh/zVm0M75a04UQCd
Ex+7
+hnbFKOr/NvF91sfGEZhoUw=
=hDP+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Christoph Maser wrote:
> I vote for the version wich is closest to what the
upstream vendor does,
> i guess that would be number 3.

But upstream doesn't have yum 

Cheers,

Ralph


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.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:
> 
> 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>

--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:01:05AM -0500, Johnny Hughes
wrote:
> 2. 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 <johnnycentos.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.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdmmattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 11:12 -0500, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> > 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).
> 
> 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




_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Phil Schaffner wrote:

> I think I agree, but smp is not explicitly addressed by
the above. 

Hence Johnny's proposal (see <http://bu
gs.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

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

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...)

-- 
Bogdan Costescu

IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches
Rechnen
Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg,
GERMANY
Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868
E-mail: Bogdan.CostescuIWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel