RHEL 6 Beta

[Jack Neely]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:57:54PM +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2010/4/23 Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:40:37PM +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> >> 2010/4/23 Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>:
> >> > Folks,
> >> >
> >> > The RHEL 6 Beta is out and I'm interested in rpmfusion support for RHEL
> >> > 6.  Sounds like EPEL will be branching in a week or two.  I'd like to
> >> > put some work into making this happen.
> >> >
> >> > I guess the first step is to get RHEL6 Beta1 on more mirrors so that we
> >> > can have easy access to the Yum repos.
> >> I would be interested in creating an el-6 branch right now also.
> >> But because anything above ffmpeg in F-13 is doomed because of
> >> http://www.videolan.org/security/sa1003.html
> >> I would branch some packages from F-13 tree. (and vlc from F-14).
> >>
> >> That been said most packages should be branched from F-12, so the question is:
> >> How much of the current RPM Fusion packages maintainer do want to
> >> support their package in EL-6 also ?
> >> (so that we can eventually automatically branch packages from F-12)
> >>
> >> Nicolas (kwizart)
> >>
> >> ps: that been said, I cannot expect anything in el-? branches before
> >> we solve two questions:
> >> How to move to our own hosted koji build server infra ?
> >> how to deal with kernel module in the EL world (where a stable kABI is
> >> the rule).
> >>
> >
> > I've been using the kmod standards as rpmfusion knows and loves with
> > RHEL5 since it was released.  It works very well there.  I don't see
> > this one as a blocker.
> Which ones are you talking about?  kmod1 or kmod2 standard ? And which
> one supports kABI if any ?
> The point is: I'm not aware rpmfusion ever did kABI the way it's
> currently done with Red Hat.
> 
> Of course that's not about a blocker, but a decision to be made along
> with a team to be in charge to maintain.
> 
> Nicolas (kwizart)
> 

I've used both kmodv1 and v2.  However neither support the kABI
packaging model.

Being that we have limited resources and we have a model for maintaining
kernel modules that works with Fedora, we should use that same model
with RHEL6 unless there is some incompatibility.  

By the way...we are the "team."  :-)  I just don't think RHEL6 is
different enough to re-engineer our processes for it. 

Jack

-- 
Jack Neely <jjneely at ncsu.edu>
Linux Czar, OIT Campus Linux Services
Office of Information Technology, NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89