Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527488 --- Comment #42 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-15 22:38:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #41) > (In reply to comment #40) > > As one of the sponsor members I want to ask some questions before > > someone (including) me can start review: > > > > - Would you explain why non-arch-independent files under /usr/lib/%{name} > > cannot be moved to %{_datadir}? - Oops... I meant why "arch-independent" files under /usr/lib/%{name} cannot be moved to %{_datadir}? > > They are arch-independent. All that gets installed in that directory is a > number of shell scripts that are provided for drbd's userland callouts (which > it fires in a number of situations, such as detecting split brain or becoming a > synchronization target). Fabio and I have discussed this issue here; please see > comment #16. - Your comment 16 does not answer my question. Usually arch-independent files are supposed to be installed under %{_datadir}. > > > - Would you explain why you want to keep "%bcond_with km" part > > on the spec file which seems completely unneeded on Fedora > > ( according to your comments )? > > Well for one thing it's positively needed for this package review, as the drbd > backport is not in the Fedora kernel as yet. :) Fabio has pointed out (in > comment #5 and comment #24, among others) that building the kernel module is > irrelevant for Fedora -- but that other packages do contain userland that is > expected to interface with a kernel feature that's not in Fedora. - I am speaking of writing _kernel space_ related hacks on the spec file (and you say this is "irrelevant for Fedora", right?) > The alternative would be to put the kernel module build setup in a separate > spec, and making that available outside of Fedora -- IMHO that's clearly an > inferior approach in terms of accessibility. - IMO Fedora / rpmfusion packages acutally do this approach. > > > Removing parts which are not needed for Fedora will make the spec > > file more readable and preferred. > > ( And I think anyway this "%bcond_with km" part is completely > > broken because we don't ensure that the kernel version of > > the build server and of the host that the rebuilt binary rpm > > is to be used is the same. > > That's actually irrelevant; we can build the userland on any kernel, it doesn't > need to match that of the kernel module build. - What I am speaking is when "--with km" is passed to your srpm and not speaking about only building userland part binary rpm. So if you're thinking of userland build, again "%bcond_with km" is not needed. > > > For example while F-12 kernel is > > now 2.6.31.1, the build server to build F-12 rpms uses > > 2.6.18 kernel: see the build.log of your comment 33) > > Yes. Again, irrelevant to the userland build. Users can always locally build > the kernel module from the source rpm. And don't need to build anything else. - So this (i.e. user _has to_ build locally kernel module) is not expected on Fedora." > > > - Similarly, would you explain why you want to keep > > %if %{without udev} part on Fedora? > > Because users who rebuild my choose not to use the drbd udev integration > scripts at all? We default to what seems sensible (to us), that is, use udev, > but there's no reason to force this upon users, so they can and will disable > this if they see fit. - So why is it needed _on Fedora_? (i.e. why do you expect that F-10/11/12/13 user chooses not to use udev integration scripts although all of them have udev installed?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review