On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 10:35 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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.
Not, if you separate "building the rpm" from "releasing the rpm".
Example:
# rpm -q --qf '%{ARCH} %{SOURCERPM}\n' glibc-headers glibc
i386 glibc-2.3.5-10.src.rpm
i686 glibc-2.3.5-10.src.rpm
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
