Hi!
Sorry for the late reply.
On 19.11.2011 22:14, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 18.11.2011 15:52, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> Below is the first swag at a kernel-modules-extra package.
>> A little bit of background and reasons for this move would be nice. I
>> assume it was mentioned somewhere already, but seems I missed it.
> There are a couple of reasons I can think of.
>
> [reasons]
Thx. Might be a good idea to add this to some readme or a shorter
variant to the %description.
In addition while at it: Would it be worth shipping a few hand selected
staging modules in this package as well? Not all of them, only those
where there is clearly someone working on improving the code upstream?
The gma500 driver for example. And the Hyper-V drivers -- getting those
out and tested afaics would even be of interest for Red Hat / RHEL afaics.
> [...
>>> +Requires: kernel%{?1:-%{1}}-%{_target_cpu} = %{version}-%{release}%{?1:.%{1}}\
>> Just FYI: Kmod2 packages in some popular add on repo depend on the
>> kernel they were build for with this:
>> kernel-uname-r = 3.1.1-2.fc16.x86_64
>> That seems to work well afaics. I think there was a reason back years
>> ago why we settled for this strategy and did not use the requires you
>> chose -- but I can't recall it and maybe it's not relevant any more
>> these days anyway (and maybe my mind comes up with the reason seconds
>> after sending this mail...).
> I can add both Requires methods, or switch.
Both sounds dangerous and I still can't think of any reason to prefer
one over the other. so I'd leave it as it is..
> [...]
> Thanks for taking the time to look it over!
np
Cu
knurd
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
