On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 11:26 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> 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.
I'll screw it once the i586 kernel is screwed from FC :) Seriously,
there are cases where i586 and external kernel modules are a valid
scenario; for example I think a lot of HTPC/PVR boxes run some VIA CPUs
that don't work with the i686 kernel, and having LIRC modules for their
remote controls is kind of essential.
But anyway, even in the hypothetical case that i586 would be ignored,
I'm not 100% sure how to implement i686 build only for the ix86 family
in the build system, while keeping in mind that the modules should
probably be built for x86_64 and ppc too. %ifarch %{ix86} \ BuildArch:
i686 \ %endif?
> As for naming, the kernel version needs to be stored
> *somewhere*.
Dependencies, surely, but it does not _have_ to be in the package's NVR,
as demonstrated by the external kernel module packages in FC4 (eg.
GFS-kernel). Having it in the NVR somewhere is useful for humans, and
it can be (ab?)used to get depsolvers to do "stuff".
> And we need to finalize the naming issue before we can
> decide what behavior depsolvers need.
Possibly.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
