Andrew D. Stadler wrote:
I recently updated my FC5 kernel to 2.6.17-1.2187 and decided to get
the latest NTFS stuff to go with it.
I'm a bit confused because I see two different module names in use,
seemingly all mixed together.
Here, <http://www.linux-ntfs.org/content/view/187>, I am offered a
download of the file:
kernel-module-ntfs-2.6.17-1.2187_FC5-2.1.27-0.rr.10.5.i686.rpm
But here, <http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/5/i386/>, I find
kmod-ntfs-2.1.27-1.2.6.17_1.2187_FC5.i686.rpm
Finally, this page,
<http://fedorasolved.org/post-install-solutions/ntfs/>, provides
slightly different information as it says to use "kmod-ntfs" on FC5
and "kernel-module-ntfs" on FC4.
* Are these two different beasts, and if so what is the different? Or
are they the same thing with two names, and why?
I tried it both ways: manual download/install as suggested by
www.linux-ntfs.org, and yum-install as suggested by pretty much
everyone else. Both worked.
* Is one or the other method preferable / recommended?
I also vote for livna.
Further, I strongly recommend all my users to install the livna repository:
# rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm
And then limit yourself to core, updates, extras, and livna.
I keep a repo file for freshrpms, atrpms, jpackage, and others, but they
are OFF by default. It is rare that I need anything that is not in the
big 4. (jpackage for jedit)
The problem is, as is often discussed here, that those 4 repositories
are using a common methodology for packaging, whereas the others may or
may not for any given package.
That spells trouble for package versioning, and will likely confuse yum
later on.
Its a bit of a political mess in the Fedora repositories, and I really
do not mean to draw any blood here. Apologies to maintainers that
disagree with me. No offense intended. The 'other' repositories used
to be way ahead of extras and livna, but those days have mostly passed.
I happily acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all the
maintainers, especially those who pioneered the way for us.
