On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 11:07 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> 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.
I honestly don't care which is the base and which is the subpackage. The
biggest issue I see is with arch determination, since they HAVE to be
the same between base and subpackage.
The userland package should only have the userland arch (i386, sparc,
ia64, ppc, x86_64), whereas the kernel-module package needs to exist for
all of these arches (i386, i586, i686, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc, sparc64,
x86_64).
I think that overcoming this obstacle may require that the two packages
be built from separate SRPMS. As always, I'm open to suggestions.
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
