[5920] in testers
Re: advansys.o kernel module missing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Cattey)
Tue Jun 8 17:42:48 2004
From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
Cc: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@mit.edu>, Kevin Chen <kchen@mit.edu>,
testers@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1086708244.1468.397.camel@egyptian-gods.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1086730966.18654.271.camel@tokata.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:42:46 -0400
Greg:
It seems like we should indeed include kernel-unsupported following the
principle of least surprise for our users. (I should review our bug to
make sure we're properly communicating to Red Hat why we think this was
a bad idea.)
Could you clarify to me why we need to ensure that kernel-unsupported
installs before kernel? Should I be beating on Red Hat to offer this
functionality in that bug report?
-wdc
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 11:24, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 06:42, Jonathan Reed wrote:
> > RedHat, in their infinite wisdom, dumped a bunch of modules (including
> > advansys.o) in the kernel-unsupported rpm.
>
> Good to know.
>
> I'd be happy to throw kernel-unsupported into the release, but it
> doesn't look like there's any mechanism to ensure that
> kernel-unsupported is installed before kernel, so the update could still
> fail on machines whose initrd files depend on an unsupported module.
> Nor does rpmlib seem to provide a way to externally guarantee that
> ordering.
>
