On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 22:34 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 09:30 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 21:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > > > > 1) create the debug-pkg ourself and don't rely on the internal rpm > > > > solution. > > > [...] > > > > If 1) is easy I'll vote for that. > > > > > > I tried, was not that hard (if I didn't miss anything). Results are > > > found at > > > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/kernel-module-example/ > > > in the wiki at > > > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/KernelModuleProposal > > > > I like this approach the best. > > I like that too, but the dilemma with the same-NEVR'd source rpm > persists. I'm not sure if it's a design goal or a design flaw, but the > little (ha!) pedant in me says it's the latter. To clarify: > > - kernel-module-foo-1.0-1.src.rpm in repo > - check out the package from CVS, build for a new kernel > -> get another kernel-module-foo-1.0-1.src.rpm which != the original Why would the src.rpm not be the same as the original? The spec file and source tarball should be consistent, and not affected by a rebuild. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 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
