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
