On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 08:38 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 21:24 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > Leaving everything else aside for a sec, this doesn't screw up bugzilla if > > you do it as a subpackage -- same way kernel and kernel-smp don't. > > I think we have to assume that there will be some kernel-module packages > that just consist of drivers, with no extra user space addons. Just for the record as we don't seem to be needing this stuff: does not matter, those could be implemented so that the SRPM would produce _only_ one binary "subpackage". > > My only concern here is maybe particular to openafs -- the kernel module > > source isn't distributed separately from the other library/userspace/gunk. I > > guess I *could* make an openafs.src.rpm and a separate > > openafs-kernel.src.rpm both containing the same source tarball, but that > > seems kinda wrong. On the other hand, hey, maybe it isn't. > > Or you could make the userspace gunk in a subpackage. No reason that > kernel-module-openafs can't generate both kernel-module-openafs and > openafs packages. What about archs? We probably don't want i586 and i686 userland openafs stuff, but just i386. Choices: 1) Just ship userland as i586 and i686 too 2) Split userland and module SRPMS 3) Conditionalize whether to build the modules or the userland or both based on some passed in build options (rpm.livna.org uses "--without modules" and "--without userland") 4) Hardcode our assumptions based on arch somewhere, eg. if target=i586 or i686, no userland will be built, and if target=i386, no modules will be built 2) gets my vote. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
