> The dilemma is, that the methology used at ATrpms differs in some > fundamental design parts from what is the current proposal, mostly the > one spec/src.rpm for both userland and kmdl builds and simple > unprepared upstream Sources:, and further derived concept > bits. > > ATrpms' concept also supports RHEL3 and earlier FCs and even RHL > releases (e.g. not dependending on availability of kernel-devel which > doesn't exist for these distributions). > > So my options are > > o convince people about adopting ATrpms' methology > good: field-proven, easy maintenance, many users already accustomed > to kmdls, works on RHEL3 and legacy, too > bad: Thorsten has put a lot of work in the current proposal, > different buildsystem adaption, danger of endless discussions So why have this discussion *now* and not when thl and ville were working on it ? Thomas -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
