On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:27:11AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Jack Neely wrote: > > NC State University. Duke. I believe Matt at Boston U. has used this > > approch in the past as well. > > My current approach is to build a subpackage containing kernel modules for > the latest three kernels all bundled together. This is horrible but works > fine in our environment. (And, works perfectly fine with buildrequires and > makes repeatable builds without passing in special parameters on the build > command line.) doesn't this imply that the kernels are also effectively bundled? > (If we wanted to have both i586 and i686 kernels, there would be a problem, > but we simply don't support i586.) :/ > I was working on updating to the Fedora standard, but it's a lot of work and > the incentive isn't high. :) > > I am inclined to believe the only real solution here is to get the in-kernel > AFS client up to snuff and abandon the OpenAFS kernel module. I don't know > when this will happen, but I think it's easier than solving this problem. :) It looks like everyone is only (really) interested in openafs kernel modules. How about http://atrpms.net/name/openafs/ These are openafs kmdls for FC3-FC5 and RHEL4 (FC6 is being worked on). Less than RH9 was abandoned and RHEL3 could be resurrected (there were some issues with x86_64) if there were anyone interested (but I'm running out of licenses and need them for RHEL5). If you have spare boxes and time and like to test you're very welcome! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp4jy9TqD5O2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
