On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:54:24PM -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > It doesn't use kernel-devel (since no such thing exists for FC <= 3), > > but a similar approach embedded into ATrpms' build system allowing to > > access kernel source configured and prepared for the targetted kernel. > > or you could just read ville's post about this to fedora-maintainers or > -extras iirc. Well, Ville wanted to subscribe me to fedora-maintainers two weeks ago, but obviously this was not possible. W/o knowing the contents of his post, the situation is that there are working mechanisms in the field giving a semi-defacto standard. If there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, adopting it would be the cleanest and easiest solution. BTW there is a bad list inflation at fedora that clutters topics across them. You mentioned two others, fedora-devel could be as well a candidate (after all we are discussing right now on this), as well as fedora-packaging. I understand why the lists are being created, but probably having that many lists is hurting more than it serves. Just my 2¢. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp7bvM4SDrao.pgp
Description: PGP signature
