On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 10:58 -0400, Jack Neely wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 05:31:31PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > 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". > > > > One spec file can produce packages like the following IIRC: > > openafs-V-R > openafs-client-V-R > kernel-module-openafs-V-R.%{cleankver} > openafs-devel-V-R Indeed. Just give the subpackage its own Release tag. -- 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