On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 13:29 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Chris Tyler <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 09:54 +0200, Dan HorÃk wrote: > >> Similar package (fake-build-provides [1], [2]) is required in koji on > >> platforms where 32bit userspace lives with 64bit-only kernel (sparc and > >> s390x) so I may be worth adding such package to the collection and track > >> the changes in dist-git instead of using an ad-hocs rpms. > > > > Shouldn't fake-kernel be a subpackage of kernel? > > Certainly seems to be the obvious way to deal with it. That sounds reasonable and obvious, but I was thinking that wouldn't fly with the kernel maintainers...how about we ask them (copied). Folks: we currently don't have a kernel package in Fedora ARM. Several people are working on fixing this by working on kernel images that support various targets, and it will be excellent to get to a point where we can ask you to endorse a couple of subpackage ARM kernel variants like -omap perhaps by having a branch on the official kernel package that can carry some of the bits being worked on in a more official capacity than them living in separate packages, eventually. That will combine with support for ARM kernel unification and DeviceTree upstream so that eventually, we can do a single kernel image for most/many ARM systems (esp. v7 systems). But for some while yet, there will be some systems for which we have no useful ARM kernel package. Currently, Fedora ARM carries a special package that just provides fake deps (and we're not alone in this, other secondaries have fake deps packages for other stuff, so there is precedent for doing this). What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package? Jon. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
