On Friday, March 21, 2014, 8:06:41 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 2:09:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>>>> > 2) A per-arch filter list, because the existing one that works on >>>>> > x86_64 leaves modules in kernel-core on ARM that lack their >>>>> > dependencies. Bad. >>>>> >>>>> OK, I sorted this out this week. I believe the only arch left to do is >>>>> s390x and that's only because I forgot about it. Oops. >>>> >>>> Is this even needed on s390 for reasons other than consistency? Similarly >>>> with power, is the idea to have a core kernel for running on an LPAR and >>>> then -drivers for the rest of it? >> >>> Needed? Probably not. At the moment it's not possible to build a >>> normal kernel on one arch and the split on another. If we're going to >>> go off and make changes to anaconda and yum and dnf to cope with this, >>> consistency on what is shipped is probably a good thing. >> >>> That being said, it is flexible in terms of the content of those >>> packages. So ppc64 could do what you suggest. s390x would arguably >>> just shove almost everything in -drivers. In reality, I expect most >>> arches to just install both packages anyway. >> >> If you update the ppc64 kernel package, please also do the same for >> the ppc 32-bit kernel. > I did. I have to adapt for all architectures we build for, and ppc is > one of those. You can find it in the scratch build I pointed to > earlier in the thread. Thank you kindly for supporting our insanity! I'll grab your scratch build and look closer. Al _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
