Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 11:28 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm: > 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. http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines Section 9, Addon Packages (kernel modules) > 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. There was a discussion on this on one of the other fedora-lists. But afaik Spot is still working on the big, great, working kernel-module- package solution...
