Am Sonntag, den 03.07.2005, 19:12 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:21 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 16:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >
> > I think you're mostly right. mainpkgversion and mainpkgrelease are
> > redundant, however. Just use Version and Release for that.
>
> Yep.
Removed already :))
> A policy or at least guidelines exactly where to place the modules
> below /lib/modules/%{kver} would be nice.
Yes.
My proposal: Put it at the same place where the normal module would be
places by a normal "make install" of that package. That has several
benefits:
- If a external Documenation says "Look for the module in /lib/$(uname
-r)/somewhere it is exactly found there where the Documentation says. No
special fedora way
- People sometimes try to compile a module on their own and go for the
rpm later (or the other way round). They might end with two different
modules in the kernel tree -- witch one wins? This can't happen if the
modules are installed at their usual place.
> Personally I think /lib/modules/%{kver}/kernel/... is bad, these are not
> modules shipped with the kernel so intruding that space feels wrong.
I don't share that opinion. I think it's confusing for no real reason.
If we have a gnome-app or enhancement it's installed in the gnome-space
in the filesystem also.
> "updates" is bad too, these aren't updates to in-kernel modules.
Yes.
> > > The kernel-module itself is now placed in
> > > %package -n kernel-module-%{mainpkgname}
> > > So only one SRPM is created no matter how much different kernel-modules
> > > are build.
> >
> > This makes sense, good thinking.
>
> Except as described in my earlier mail to this thread, if the main
> package's NVR doesn't change between rebuilds, we have a problem with
> -debuginfo for these builds.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2005-June/msg00055.html
Uhh, sorry, I knew I was forgetting something. Yes, that should be
fixed. So what are our options:
1) create the debug-pkg ourself and don't rely on the internal rpm
solution.
2) use a spec similar two my first proposal where the actual source of
the kernel-module is in an external rpm that is a BuildRequire.
Resulting SRPMS are small then.
3) No sub-pkg -- gives a lot of SRPMS that might take a lot of space...
4) <your idea here>
If 1) is easy I'll vote for that. Otherwise I'd like to give 2) a try.
3) is a no go when I think of kernel-modules like ati-fglrx where each
SRPM package would take around 4,5 MByte currently. Especially if we
want to rebuild kernel-module for nearly all kernels that ever were
published (someone suggested that somewhere in this thread iirc).
--
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
