Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 616419
RHEL6 ddiskit: new templates fail for RHEL6
Last modified: 2010-07-21 13:24:01 EDT
Created attachment 433145 [details]
changes made to the ddiskit templates
Description of problem:
The latest ddiskit we got (ddiskit-rhel6_sym53c8xx_beta2plus, Jul. 7 2010) contains a tmpl.spec that doesn't work out of the box for RHEL6
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
I took the tmpl.spec and tried to adapt it to the sym53c8xx driver in the ddiskit package, just to see what the differences of the generated kmods are
I needed to make a few changes in the template outside the explicitly user-modifiable sections. There was one change in kmodtool, too.
Only name/version/release need to be changed
As I already wrote by email - if we can stick with the old spec file template, this is not a major problem.
The biggest change is that the xen variants are dropped for RHEL6.
The other important change is related to the different paths under /lib/modules which now include the architecture.
This issue has been proposed when we are only considering blocker
issues in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release.
** If you would still like this issue considered for the current
release, ask your support representative to file as a blocker on
your behalf. Otherwise ask that it be considered for the next
Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. **
I'm sorry for the confusion. You should not need to ship your own kmodtool at this point, and the tmpl directory is stale. The example is for the particular SCSI driver, which uses the stock RHEL6 kmodtool script without modification. Can you check the example, and ignore the "tmpl" directory for now since I will make another updated ddiskit that has a fixed template directory.
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal
this decision by reopening this request.
Martin - apologies that our automated system closed this bug down because it is not an "approved" item for RHEL6 (since there is no change required in RHEL6). This was not my intention, but it did it anyway, and I am happy to re-open it if my previous response was not clear. What do you think?