Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > You'd want to do it something like that. > > > > kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as you > > say. > > > > > > I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both of those > > and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just get the "kernel" > > metapackage when a transaction asks for something to provide "kernel", but > > if you explicitly ask for kernel-minimal you'd get just the minimal. > > > > This would all be done from one kernel spec and built out at the same time. > > We've got a lot of new infrastructure coming for kernel builds and we don't > > want to make things even more complicated by having to do multiple rpm build > > runs. > > All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the > existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split > though. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain. > > The idea that Dave, Justin, and Kevin all had simlutaneously about > doing a 'kernel-virtguest' might be worthwhile if someone wants to > spend time poking at a config, etc. That also works with the normal paradigm where all the variants provide 'kernel' for RPM dependency purposes; if you try to have a kernel-minimal that provides 'kernel' while also having a 'kernel' package that requires 'kernel-minimal', things get a bit more strange. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
