On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:07:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Josh Boyer schreef op ma 13-01-2014 om 15:41 [-0500]: >> >> As far as I know, nobody actually uses buildid to differentiate between >> >> kernel builds. >> > >> > Well, I do! >> >> OK, so it would be fairer to say "it is infrequently used". :) > > Its actually used on a very regular basis by some folks for one-off > builds. However, said folks are pretty much all internal to Red Hat, doing > RHEL builds. For example, I craft a test build via 'make rh-srpm > BUIDLID=".test_foo"', which subs in the BUILDID value for the buildid bit > in the spec file. We can of course just graft that back in when RHEL8 > branches from Fedora <20 + mumble> in the future. But I personally like > having the "edit this" part on its own line as its own thing regardless. > You can have a spec file patch or script that does it much more simply > than if you have to worry about other things that might be in the var > you want to tweak. OK, I guess I'll just drop this one. So much for low-hanging fruit. As an aside, some of the other changes I'm playing with to split up the kernel packaging so the cloud people get a tiny kernel to install are much more invasive. In terms of RHEL<mumble> they'll be a much bigger impact. They will likely need to be adopted in RHEL land eventually and not reverted/replaced. I will, of course, post them first because I'd like review for a bunch of different reasons. I've already posted this on some of the other discussions, but the general premise is splitting it into kernel-core and kernel-drivers packages. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
