On 6/5/05, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > DKMS doesn't solve the problem of the dependencies for the packages not > matching, so it feels to me like you're just trying to be a troll. But > I'll bite ;-) Whatever it takes to get the kernel module discussion restarted. It sort of died in the packaging list when it came up before. I'm more than happy to wait for spot to come back and discussion can begin in earnest in the packaging list. > Once _that_ is defined, then we can think about buildsystem triggers to > ensure that the packages get rebuilt in a timely fashion and that the > tree thus stays sane. buildsystem triggers that Core and Extras and 3rd party builders of ntfs modules can rely on? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
