On 16 Mar 2008, at 09:02, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 08:01:46PM -0400, Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Axel Thimm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
YHO doesn't help that he's trying to use an older minor revision of
the RPMs he's using with a newer minor revision of modules; The
kernel
version is entirely irrelevant.
foo-1-(`uname -r`) would still be older than foo-2-(`uname -r`).
No, look closer and you'll see that he has two different uname-r, not
the same. And by the very construction of the uname-r-in-name scheme
this comparison cannot and shouldn't be done.
Erm. No. The problem here was that the OP had built his first kernel
module (and userland) from openafs-1.4.5-2.el5, and his second kernel
module from openafs-1.4.5-1.el5. The upgrade failure was entirely
because the second module was built from an earlier OpenAFS RPM, and
not any problems with the uname -r location in the kmod scheme. You
may be right about the benefits of kmdl vs kmod, but they just aren't
relevant to this case.
Simon.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
