> > Several solutions have been floated on this list over the last few months. > The one I personally like most is the concept that the openafs rpm, that was > posted here the other week, uses. That solution has the quite big advantage > of allowing users of this approach to make your modules for *all* released > kernels in one go and in one package, and thus allowing the user to go back > to older kernels without having to worry about an additional extra package > needed for that. > Another person also had a script to build modules automated, but done in a > different way, so I would not call this an issue without solution at all. > No. Including kernel headers in every single package that builds an external module is *WRONG*. Not to mention the side effect of building, say, openafs modules for, how many kernel errata does FC1 have now? I've talked with enough people and read enough emails and documentation to understand that there is a pretty excepted standard for packaging kernel modules. Either we should try our best to stick with that or have discussion and produce documentation about standards for packaging kernel modules that make more since. The normal practice is that you have a package of the same arch as the matching kernel (openafs.i586 for kernel.i586) that may or may not contain the complementary SMP module. That package Provides: kernel-modules (where either the code in up2date or the documentation in the Fedora Packaging Guidlines need to be brought into agreement). This enables the only install, never upgrade fuctionality that the kernel packages are installed using. Because of this functionality the module packages can /only/ contain the module objects. The problem of packaging external modules is a specifically a Fedora packaging issue and there has been several mentions of making the kernel package work like every other package as much as possible. I like this, it makes since. kernel-source(code) goes away. kernel-smp is merged into kernel All the kbuild infrasturcture is moved into kernel-devel. I do like the idea of having /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build symlink point to /blah/blah/kernel-headers/arch. The question is how to design the kernel-devel package to do this sanely. Should there be a kernel-devel package for each arch? Or all in one? There's also the kbuild patch floating about LKML to add the source/ symlink as well. Thoughts? Jack Neely > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- Jack Neely <slack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Realm Linux Administration and Development PAMS Computer Operations at NC State University GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89
