In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might have misunderstood things or whatever.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud
Note, that I haven't yet reached out to the Anaconda team (regarding the possibility to install kernel-core instead of kernel) but will do so now. They don't seem critical to the change, though but just to the way we're implementing it when creating the images. (Assuming we will use Anaconda to build F21 images).
Thanks, Sandro
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might have misunderstood things or whatever. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud
Looks basically good to me.
I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security updaes.
If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that goes under the "dependency" section. Have you tested how yum/dnf work with upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the "Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud" change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might have misunderstood things or whatever. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Kernel_Packaging_for_Cloud
Looks basically good to me.
I added the additional benefit about possibly reduced need for security updaes.
Thanks.
If we are not including Anaconda developers as owners, I think that goes under the "dependency" section.
Right, I didn't add it as the kernel split itself does not technically depend on Anaconda. But on the otherhand, I required the adoption in the scope.
So I now added a note to the scope that it's not absolutely critical for the actual change and added it as a soft dependency, too. I know, we absolutely do want it (and I think the Anaconda team has already taken the necessary steps) but technically splitting the kernel does not depend on it.
Have you tested how yum/dnf work with upgrades (and with yum's feature for protecting the running kernel from being removed)? Those might need to go in scope and deps too.
Continuing this discussion in the other thread. :)
-- Sandro
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Matthew Miller -
Sandro "red" Mathys