On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:49:44PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > Also, how to deal with smp/hugemem? Separate kernel-module-smp-%{name} and
> > kernel-module-hugemem-%{name} subpackages?
> > (Or is that kernel-smp-module, to match kernel-smp-devel?)
> None of the above; the variant is included in %{kver}, which is the
> output of "uname -r" for the target kernel.
Oh; duh.
In the case of openafs, that requires some more hackery to figure out if
we're supposed to be giving the options for an smp build. But I suspect this
*way* falls into the category of "openafs is a weird bad example case".
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 78 degrees Fahrenheit.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
