On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:44:26AM +0000, Simon Wilkinson wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2008, at 09:02, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 08:01:46PM -0400, Derrick Brashear wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> YHO doesn't help that he's trying to use an older minor revision of >>> the RPMs he's using with a newer minor revision of modules; The kernel >>> version is entirely irrelevant. >>> >>> foo-1-(`uname -r`) would still be older than foo-2-(`uname -r`). >> >> No, look closer and you'll see that he has two different uname-r, not >> the same. And by the very construction of the uname-r-in-name scheme >> this comparison cannot and shouldn't be done. > > Erm. No. The problem here was that the OP had built his first kernel module > (and userland) from openafs-1.4.5-2.el5, and his second kernel module from > openafs-1.4.5-1.el5. The upgrade failure was entirely because the second > module was built from an earlier OpenAFS RPM, and not any problems with the > uname -r location in the kmod scheme. You may be right about the benefits > of kmdl vs kmod, but they just aren't relevant to this case.
Well, the OP wrote in the first post: "Yum refuses to install the package claiming that kmod-openafs-1.4.5-2.2.6.18_53.1.4.el5 is newer than kmod-openafs-1.4.5-1.2.6.18_53.1.13.el5." This is 1.4.5-2 built for 2.6.18_53.1.4.el5 vs 1.4.5-1 built for 2.6.18_53.1.13.el5. These builds are for *different kernels* and having a depsolver forbidding to use different versions of the module for different kernels is a bug. Building foo-1 vs foo-2 on different kernels is a valid case and sometimes even required (for example wireless drivers for the different RHEL5 kernels with differently pacthed wireless subsystems) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpBCvDJ5eeK6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
