SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

February 2007

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:30:10 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
Troy Dawson wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:46:45PM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>> I've been working on the kernel module plugin for SL 4.5.
>>> I like Axel's kmdl plugin so much I simply tossed the old plugin and 
>>> started fresh with his.  But there were a few points I changed.
>>> My goal is to get the plugin to work in the same manner for 
>>> kernel-modules for S.L. 3.0.x.
>>
>> How about having both in the same plugin code? It will be easier to
>> maintain (I'm currently working on fixing a possible bug with yum
>> remove). All there needs to be done is to check for both formats and
>> then try to install both variants and whatever succeeds.
>>
> 
> I could give that a try.  It shouldn't be hard since we have both ways 
> to check in the two plugins.
> 
>> Or we could outcast some bits like the regex to match on and what to
>> pull in to /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/kmdl.conf. That would be cleaner.
> 
> I like having them both in, I'll give it a try.
> 
> Troy

Oh, and I'm going to try this with yum 2.6.x, since it already has the 
yum remove function in it.

I'm trying to remember and I'm going to look through the documentation, 
but is there a reason we shouldn't go to 2.6.x on SL4?  I know yum 3.x 
has some major changes, but shouldn't 2.6.x work fine?

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2