On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:27:21AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Marc W. Mengel wrote:
> >Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >>kmdl - What Axel Thimm has developed and implemented
> >>kernel-module - What we currently are doing, although I believe the 
> >>idea was originally from livna
> >
> >It sounds to me like kmdl and kernel-module are similar, modulo the
> >actual naming convention -- for a migration path, would it make sense
> >to do a merged plugin that accepts either naming convention?  That way
> >we can migrate from one convention to the other more smoothly(?)
> >
> >Or are there more devilish details there than I've gleaned from the
> >discussion so far?
> >
> >Marc
> 
> Actually, I had thought of just having both plugin's installed, or at 
> least available.  It shouldn't hurt anything, and allow people to 
> install whichever one they want.
> But as a developer, maintaining both ways is rather painful.
> Troy

kmdls are actually many different things in one name:

a) an api for writing specfiles using some macros
b) a naming convention for resulting packages

The %kmdl_ (or perhaps soon %kmdl2_) macros can have many different
implementations, "kmdl-packages" or "kernel-module-packages" are both
possible from the same specfile. In fact at some time (a couple of
years ago), when it looked like people where going to unify the scheme
I renamed the kmdls to kernel-module.

But these efforts turned to nowhere and ATrpms users turned annoyed by
the longish kernel-module prefix which also sorted the kernel modules
at the wrong places in their depsolver guis, e.g. for installing alsa
they would need to scroll along from "a" to "k" instead of having it
all cluster up together like it does for foo-kmdl infix notation.

I would go for kmdl naming in SL5 providing kernel-module virtual
provides, so that any existing documentation is still valid. In fact
the current %kmdl macros already have commented support for doing so.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net