On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:11:41AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 10:30 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm: > > 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. > [...] > > W/o knowing the contents of his post, > > Axel, read: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-March/msg00096.html Thanks, as I see it Ville discussed setting up the infrastructure to build kernel modules against. What I miss is the discussion of the kernel modules themselves, e.g. what is the proposed naming/versioning scheme. It was a long discussion, but I think finally we all agreed that `uname -r` has to be part of the kernel module _name_, while the version/release tags are standard ones (wrt the module's source). The proposed naming from my side is foo-kmdl-`uname -r`. It's short, sorts well with the rest of foo, doesn't need any yum/up2date/apt/smart special handling and users have already accepted this. Still wrt to the list inflation and closure, no being able to participate to the discussion of such fundamental parts is non-open for the least to say ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpE2OQEqj1ab.pgp
Description: PGP signature
