2000-11-26 23:10:37

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond



Keith,

Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions
of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat and
RedHat derived Linux distributions. This patch only requires
4 very short changes to depmod.c as opposed to thousands of
changes necessary in anaconda and other RedHat compatible
programs and scripts to work with your standard depmod
programs without these changes.

Thanks

Jeff



Attachments:
modutils-2.3.20.patch (1.10 kB)

2000-11-26 23:17:07

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

> + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'},

I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions

2000-11-26 23:19:17

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:46:35PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'},
>
> I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions

Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
-m simply maps to -F.

:-)

Jeff

2000-11-26 23:33:10

by Mohammad A. Haque

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard
utils to account for distro handling.

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
> it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
> that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
> actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
> -m simply maps to -F.
>

--

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[email protected]

"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================

2000-11-26 23:37:30

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard
> utils to account for distro handling.

Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches.
They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours
rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this
set of switches, why not add them as alias commands? It's a trivial
patch.

Jeff

>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
> > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
> > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
> > actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
> > -m simply maps to -F.
> >
>
> --
>
> =====================================================================
> Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
> [email protected]
>
> "Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
> Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
> [email protected]
> =====================================================================

2000-11-26 23:48:52

by Tom Rini

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches.
> They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours
> rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this
> set of switches, why not add them as alias commands? It's a trivial
> patch.

I hate to jump in here in the middle of a perfectly good argument but I'd like
to point out a few things:
a) If RedHat/RedHat-like distros needs these changes they can include this
patch. The plus side is it won't piss off the people that seem to care and
don't use said distros the down side is that if/when another security update
comes out people will have to hope this patch applies easily still, if they
update themselves.
b) Are these switches which used to be valid in modutils 2.3.x? If so, why?
It makes perfect sense to keep this patch around until modutils 2.4 (or 2.5
if modutils version is still supposed to match kernel version). If these
are old modutils 2.2.x switches, see part a).
And c) Why does it matter if RedHat/etc would have to adapt their scripts.
There's always part a, or what debian does for stable sometimes, backporting
fixes. Or even lots of sed & awk magic.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

2000-11-26 23:53:43

by Keith Owens

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions
>of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat and
>RedHat derived Linux distributions.

I have a big problem with Redhat. They make incompatible changes to
utilities, do not feed patches back to maintainers then expect the rest
of the world to follow their lead. The -i and -m flags to modutils are
not the only example, I recently found IA64 and Sparc patches they had
added to modutils code and not bothered to tell me. Other distributors
are much better about sending me patches, Debian and SuSe in particular
do the right thing.

Since "-F System.map" in modutils is equivalent to "-m System.map -i"
and works on all distributions, not just Redhat, the "-m -i" patch is
unnecessary. Consider this my protest against bad habits by
distributors, they created the mess with their lack of communication
and they have to fix it.

2000-11-26 23:58:03

by H. Peter Anvin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'},
>
> I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions
>

No, but sometimes you really want to be able to.

-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt

2000-11-27 00:43:44

by David Ford

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:46:35PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > + {"ignore-versions", 0, 0, 'i'},
> >
> > I dont think we should encourage anyone to ignore symbol versions
>
> Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
> it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
> that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
> actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
> -m simply maps to -F.

It's still a bad precedent. Anaconda should have been written correctly in
the first place.

-d


Attachments:
david.vcf (176.00 B)
Card for David Ford

2000-11-27 00:46:53

by David Ford

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard
> > utils to account for distro handling.
>
> Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches.
> They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours
> rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this
> set of switches, why not add them as alias commands? It's a trivial
> patch.

Then let RedHat maintain their version of modutils. RedHat isn't the
standard, nor should RedHat dictate to authors, nor should other distributions
and persons be affected by RedHat's methods.

If you don't like it, replace your depmod with a script that strips that flag
before calling the original depmod.

-d


Attachments:
david.vcf (176.00 B)
Card for David Ford

2000-11-27 02:13:00

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:15:02PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches.
> > They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours
> > rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this
> > set of switches, why not add them as alias commands? It's a trivial
> > patch.
>
> I hate to jump in here in the middle of a perfectly good argument but I'd like
> to point out a few things:
> a) If RedHat/RedHat-like distros needs these changes they can include this
> patch. The plus side is it won't piss off the people that seem to care and
> don't use said distros the down side is that if/when another security update
> comes out people will have to hope this patch applies easily still, if they
> update themselves.
> b) Are these switches which used to be valid in modutils 2.3.x? If so, why?
> It makes perfect sense to keep this patch around until modutils 2.4 (or 2.5
> if modutils version is still supposed to match kernel version). If these
> are old modutils 2.2.x switches, see part a).
> And c) Why does it matter if RedHat/etc would have to adapt their scripts.
> There's always part a, or what debian does for stable sometimes, backporting
> fixes. Or even lots of sed & awk magic.

Oh well. Look like %patch -p1 in the rpm for now.

Jeff

>
> --
> Tom Rini (TR1265)
> http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

2000-11-27 02:17:00

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:23:08AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700,
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Keith,
> >
> >Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future versions
> >of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with RedHat and
> >RedHat derived Linux distributions.
>
> I have a big problem with Redhat. They make incompatible changes to
> utilities, do not feed patches back to maintainers then expect the rest
> of the world to follow their lead. The -i and -m flags to modutils are
> not the only example, I recently found IA64 and Sparc patches they had
> added to modutils code and not bothered to tell me. Other distributors
> are much better about sending me patches, Debian and SuSe in particular
> do the right thing.
>
> Since "-F System.map" in modutils is equivalent to "-m System.map -i"
> and works on all distributions, not just Redhat, the "-m -i" patch is
> unnecessary. Consider this my protest against bad habits by
> distributors, they created the mess with their lack of communication
> and they have to fix it.

Well Keith, I will never fail to post back changes to you, as evidenced
by the fact I did send you one. Anconda is open sourced, and as such,
is no longer owned by any distributor. The question is whether to
diverge it from theirs. I would like to not do this, since, as you
point out, it generates changes back the other way.

It's your call. I can keep the patch around because I really don't
want to diverge anaconda any more than I have to. At some point,
perhaps they will get changes to you more timely.

:-)

Jeff

2000-11-27 02:20:10

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:16:26PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 06:02:35PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > I'd rather have Anaconda changed rather than special casing standard
> > > utils to account for distro handling.
> >
> > Great. Then tell RedHat to rewrite it without the need for these switches.
> > They will say NO. It's a trivial change, and would save me a lot of hours
> > rewriting scripts. I did it once, but if RedHat has standardized on this
> > set of switches, why not add them as alias commands? It's a trivial
> > patch.
>
> Then let RedHat maintain their version of modutils. RedHat isn't the
> standard, nor should RedHat dictate to authors, nor should other distributions
> and persons be affected by RedHat's methods.
>
> If you don't like it, replace your depmod with a script that strips that flag
> before calling the original depmod.

Anaconda is open sourced, so it's not technically tied to any one
distributor any more....

Jeff

>
> -d
>

Content-Description: Card for David Ford

2000-11-27 02:30:32

by Tom Rini

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 07:46:43PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Anaconda is open sourced, so it's not technically tied to any one
> distributor any more....
<NIT>
Technically, yes it is opensourced. But one of the things that does kinda
distinguish one distro from another is the installer[1].
</NIT>
So yes, it is opensource. So, counter-question. Why should this non
distro owned program require a specific distro's program? :) But this all
of course a moot point.

[1] The sum difference between YellowDogLinux 1.0, LinuxPPC, Inc 1999 and
LinuxPPC Reference Release was that two changed/help port the installer the
3rd did, which was RedHat's newt-based installer. Some confusion ensused.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

2000-11-27 02:41:54

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

> > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
> > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
> > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
> > actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
> > -m simply maps to -F.
>
> It's still a bad precedent. Anaconda should have been written correctly in
> the first place.

I don't know if its an Anaconda issue or a limitation in the tools. Keith is
the modutils maintainer and its up to the Anaconda hackers to prove to him that
he has a problem so I think he is absolutely right in refusing to change it
until that is proven

2000-11-27 03:06:58

by Jeff V. Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:11:49AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Anaconda will barf and require over 850+ changes to the scripts without
> > > it. If you look at the patch, you will note that it's a silent switch
> > > that's only there to avoid a noisy error message from depmod. It
> > > actually does nothing other than set a flag that also does nothing.
> > > -m simply maps to -F.
> >
> > It's still a bad precedent. Anaconda should have been written correctly in
> > the first place.
>
> I don't know if its an Anaconda issue or a limitation in the tools. Keith is
> the modutils maintainer and its up to the Anaconda hackers to prove to him that
> he has a problem so I think he is absolutely right in refusing to change it
> until that is proven

Oddly, the tools already provide the capability needed by anaconda, just
not in the format the anaconda scripts and code expect. i.e., anaconda
is using -m in place of -F, and somewhere down the line someone needed
to force depmod checks of modules against mismatched kernels (???) which is
probably left over from some point when RedHat was shipping default
kernels "naked" (without modversions). That's the only justification
I can see for having -i at all, and since I come from a binary compatible
world, I can kindof understand why someone would have needed this
to support loading of binary modules accross versions (before modversions
became widely used). I don't know how to take the "anaconda hacker" moniker.

Jeff






>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

2000-11-27 17:19:00

by Jes Sorensen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Owens <[email protected]> writes:

Keith> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, "Jeff V. Merkey"
Keith> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Keith,
>>
>> Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future
>> versions of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with
>> RedHat and RedHat derived Linux distributions.

Keith> I have a big problem with Redhat. They make incompatible
Keith> changes to utilities, do not feed patches back to maintainers
Keith> then expect the rest of the world to follow their lead. The -i
Keith> and -m flags to modutils are not the only example, I recently
Keith> found IA64 and Sparc patches they had added to modutils code
Keith> and not bothered to tell me. Other distributors are much
Keith> better about sending me patches, Debian and SuSe in particular
Keith> do the right thing.

I don't remember where the ia64 modutils patches come from, there were
some floating around between the ia64 developers for a while. The
sparc patches I don't have a clue about where come from.

That said I think you are pointing out a very valid problem. The same
problem exists within the kernel, I see it every so often that someone
decides to hack one a drivers and send the patch to Linus without
bothering to even Cc the author a copy. Sometimes this is 'just' to
make it compliant with the latest development kernel but Cc'ing the
maintainer is not too much to expect.

I would also like to encourage people to contact a maintainer if they
want to make extensive changes to a bit of code someone else
maintains. It is not uncommon that the maintainer already has an idea
about how to do something and might even be working on it. It is a
waste of his/her (and other peoples') time to have two conflicting
development like this going.

Jes

2000-11-27 17:30:11

by Jakub Jelinek

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modutils 2.3.20 and beyond

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 05:48:28PM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Owens <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Keith> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:55 -0700, "Jeff V. Merkey"
> Keith> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Keith,
> >>
> >> Please consider the attached patch for inclusion in all future
> >> versions of the modutils depmod program for compatiblity with
> >> RedHat and RedHat derived Linux distributions.
>
> Keith> I have a big problem with Redhat. They make incompatible
> Keith> changes to utilities, do not feed patches back to maintainers
> Keith> then expect the rest of the world to follow their lead. The -i
> Keith> and -m flags to modutils are not the only example, I recently
> Keith> found IA64 and Sparc patches they had added to modutils code
> Keith> and not bothered to tell me. Other distributors are much
> Keith> better about sending me patches, Debian and SuSe in particular
> Keith> do the right thing.
>
> I don't remember where the ia64 modutils patches come from, there were
> some floating around between the ia64 developers for a while. The
> sparc patches I don't have a clue about where come from.

The sparc patches were not sent just because of lack of time on my part,
Jeff Johnson wrote it so that modules compiled with sparc64 gcc 2.96
(basically anything which generates OLO10 relocations) can be inserted and I
wanted to review/test it first myself (and did not get to it early enough).

Jakub