On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:04 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:40 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > As an aside, I didn't think Extras was ready to tackle the issue of > > kernel module packages yet. > > Right, at least three issues remain: how to name the modules, how to > make depsolvers do the right thing with them, and how to request builds > for i586 and i686 from the build system for the same package. Screw i586 for now. As for naming, the kernel version needs to be stored *somewhere*. And we need to finalize the naming issue before we can decide what behavior depsolvers need. > But we should really fix the remaining issues with kernel module builds, > I'd like to get LIRC modules shipped too, and there may be other stuff > queued up from others. Anybody willing to (re)start or join this > discussion somewhere? fedora-packaging? Works for me. Here's my first submission: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00965.html I've had to make a few changes for FC4, and I'll post those later today when I get a chance. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://fedora.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
