On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 10:00 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:12 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > > > There are variables like build host, build time, file timestamps, file > > > modes, --define's passed to the srpm build, possibly other buildsys > > > configuration variations etc. All of which are sort of cosmetic, but > > > nevertheless result in a different source rpm. > > > > I'm really not worried about cosmetic changes. None of these things > > should affect the binary packages generated from that src.rpm. > > --defines end up in various dependencies of the source rpm, which does > not matter as long as one doesn't use its dependencies for anything, but > the specfile's instead. (This is not limited to these packages.) > > The original question remains though; what to do with the srpms? > Discard or overwrite the ones already in the repo? My +1 to the former, > or more generally: never overwrite any package in the repository. Personally, since the buildsystem is going to have to treat kernel-module-* packages differently, I'd like to see it build them like this: When a make build is done in kernel-module-foo/FC-3/, the buildsystem assembles the sources and makes a SRPM. It then looks at a list (either generated at buildtime, or preexistant) of the released kernels for FC-3, and iterates through each of them, running rpmbuild --rebuild --define "kver $VERSION". At the end of the loop, we should have all the binary packages and a single SRPM. ~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
