On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "PJ" == Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PJ> That doesn't guarantee the right thing -- it's inverted. It makes
> PJ> it so that before kernel-devel's %post runs, kernel must be
> PJ> installed. What Matt need
Peter Jones wrote:
(Adding Panu to the Cc)
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MD" == Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> [...] there's no ordering guarantee between the two such that we
MD> know kernel-devel is always installed before kernel.
It should be possible to have kernel-devel have
> "PJ" == Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PJ> That doesn't guarantee the right thing -- it's inverted. It makes
PJ> it so that before kernel-devel's %post runs, kernel must be
PJ> installed. What Matt needs is a guarantee that kernel-devel is
PJ> installed (if it will be installed at
(Adding Panu to the Cc)
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MD" == Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> [...] there's no ordering guarantee between the two such that we
MD> know kernel-devel is always installed before kernel.
It should be possible to have kernel-devel have Requires(post): ker
Jason L Tibbitts III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > "MD" == Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MD> [...] there's no ordering guarantee between the two such that we
> MD> know kernel-devel is always installed before kernel.
>
> It should be possible to have kernel-devel have Requires(
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:13:35PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:01:23PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:54:29PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > > > Use triggers - this functionality already exists wit
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:01:23PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:54:29PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > > Use triggers - this functionality already exists without kernel-specific
> > > > infrastructure.
> > >
> > > a) LSB sug
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:41AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Also from a support perspective, it becomes more complicated to support
> > kernel installs when random user scripts can cause unknown behaviour.
>
> This has been the argument against DKMS for 5 years now. However, in
> those 5 yea
> "MD" == Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> [...] there's no ordering guarantee between the two such that we
MD> know kernel-devel is always installed before kernel.
It should be possible to have kernel-devel have Requires(post): kernel
or use some other type of fine-grained depende
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:54:29PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > Use triggers - this functionality already exists without kernel-specific
> > > infrastructure.
> >
> > a) LSB suggests triggers are evil.
>
> Then triggers must be the right answer.
:-
Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Use triggers - this functionality already exists without kernel-specific
> > infrastructure.
>
> a) LSB suggests triggers are evil.
Then triggers must be the right answer.
> b) triggers don't tell me the version of the package that got
>installed th
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:45:05PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433121
> >
> > DKMS would like to have the opportunity to run it's
> > auto-rebuilder/installer after a new kernel RPM has been installed,
> > w
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:35:19PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:26AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433121
> >
> > DKMS would like to have the opportunity to run it's
> > auto-rebuilder/installer after a new kernel RPM has been
Matt Domsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433121
>
> DKMS would like to have the opportunity to run it's
> auto-rebuilder/installer after a new kernel RPM has been installed,
> without having to wait for a system restart to run it. Likewise, when
> a ker
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:26AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433121
>
> DKMS would like to have the opportunity to run it's
> auto-rebuilder/installer after a new kernel RPM has been installed,
> without having to wait for a system restart to run it.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:20AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > For Fedora 9 maybe it should be the sysfs interface if it works.
> > i don't really see a harm in having both.
>
> I imagine that eventually someone upstream will make the decision a no-brainer
> by removing the proc stuff. Not
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:40AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build
> > > directly) on my laptop.
> > > Hal det
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build
> > directly) on my laptop.
> > Hal detects two batteries because it looks in sysfs and in procfs for
> > the battery in
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:49:44AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:36:49AM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > is there any reason why we can't just move %post to %posttrans?
> >
> > %posttrans breaks the way we do bootlo
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:36:49AM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > is there any reason why we can't just move %post to %posttrans?
>
> %posttrans breaks the way we do bootloader config updating as it leaves
> around no entries in the bootloader
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> is there any reason why we can't just move %post to %posttrans?
%posttrans breaks the way we do bootloader config updating as it leaves
around no entries in the bootloader config after all the %preuns have
been processed. I looked at this a
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:23 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > Yeah, you need a new enough hal aparently, which I guess f8 didn't have.
> > F9 should be safe to be using just the sysfs stuff.
>
> I have not tested rawhide on a laptop yet, but it seems that rawhide
> still uses hal-0.5.10 (which is also th
On Feb 18, 2008 6:06 AM, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build
> > > directly) on my laptop.
> > > Hal de
23 matches
Mail list logo
