Hi Troy, Andreas,

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:

> Andreas Petzold wrote:

>> $ rpm -q --provides kernel-module-openafs-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp
>> kernel-module-openafs = 0:1.4.1-0.11.SL
>> openafs-kernel
>> kernel-module-openafs-2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp = 0:1.4.1-0.11.SL
>> 
>> $ rpm -q --provides kernel-module-openafs-2.6.9-67.0.4.ELsmp
>> openafs-kernel
>> kernel-module-openafs-2.6.9-67.0.4.ELsmp = 0:1.4.4-46.SL4
>> 
>> And now I do understand what's going wrong. The kernel-module plugin 
>> requires the line "kernel-module-openafs" to be present from which it 
>> constructs the new package name kernel-module-openafs-<new kernel>.

Sorry, I probably wasn't aware of the plugin relying on this when I 
removed it in 2006 when working on packaging for SL5 (which was then 
extended to work on SL4 as well, and used there much later). It's useless 
and redundant otherwise. As Troy said, the current plugin from 4.6 works 
fine without it.

>> However this line in the 'provides' part of the rpm header is not 
>> present in the more recent rpms. On some of my machines I've cleaned up 
>> very old versions of the kernel-module-openafs packages as they are not 
>> automatically removed even when the corresponding kernel is removed and

That dependency went in at the same time the redundant provide went out.
And it broke the plugin until Troy fixed it...

>> on these machines the update doesn't work correctly. On the machines 
>> that still have the old packages the update works fine.

We could add this provide again (maybe on SL4 only), and after the next 
update things should be on track, right? Objections? Troy?

>> I haven't checked if this problem also occurs with other kernel module
>> packages.
>> 
>> So my question is, is this a bug in the packaging of the kernel-module-XXX
>> type packages or is this a bug in the kernel-modules yum plugin?
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>
>>                 Andreas
>
> Hi Andreas,
> It is probrubly the yum plugin.  And it is possible that some machines have 
> one plugin, and others another.  SL 4.6 started having a newer yum plugin. 
> It works better.
> Why was this not pushed out as an errata, and hense, to all SL4 machines?
> It updated the yum, slightly changing it's behavior (I can't remember which 
> behaviour, it was something that rarely happens I believe).
> And nobody was complaining.
> Try using the yum, and the kernel-module plugin, from SL 4.6, and see if this 
> gives you the behaviour you are looking for.
> Troy

Cheers,
 	Stephan


-- 
Stephan Wiesand
   DESY - DV -
   Platanenallee 6
   15738 Zeuthen, Germany