Am Donnerstag, den 30.06.2005, 17:11 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> > I split
> > the package in a userland package that creates a %{name}-kmsrc.rpm that
> > is used by the kernel-module-package as source. Something like this
> > would be neat package like nvidia als ati drivers where a single srpm is
> > quite big if you want to rebuild only the kernel-module
>
> I don't see the point of the kmsrc package.
As I said in the mail to spot -- I removed it.
> If you want to optimize SRPM download sizes, why not just supply a
> separate trimmed-down tarball containing only the kernel module bits in
> the kernel module SRPM (and include comments in the specfile how it was
> created from the upstream dist tarball, or include a script to do it in
> the source rpm)?
Yes, that is my plan for the ati-fglrx package because the srpm is now
22M, but the src for the kernel-module is a lot smaller.
> And if you want, another similar trimmed one in the
> userland SRPM containing only the non-kernel-module parts.
I don't see a reason for this.
> Further, the sources and the build routines for the kernel modules are
> now split into two packages, which means also extra work and care from
> the maintainer.
In the case of ati-fglrx or nvidia-glx I think it's worth the trouble.
For ndiswrapper it's probably not.
BTW, I updated the packages/specs at
http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/kernel-module-example/
and also the proposal at
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/KernelModuleProposal
I added it as real world example/second proposal with split packages for
userland and kernel-module.
--
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
