On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:42 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > 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; > As architectures actually are switched outside of rpm-specs > (rpmbuild --target=..) this isn't a packaging issue, but actually is a > build system issue. > > I.e. the buildsystem has to be equipped with means to specify > architectures, because rpm specs can't handle it. It's also an rpmdb issue as you (or at least *I*) can't have kernel-devel.i586 and kernel-devel.i686 installed simultaneously even though there are no file conflicts between the packages. -- 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
