On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:30:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:54:06PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> > >> Axel Thimm schrieb: > >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:11:57PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 13:36 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >>> And to cut to the chase: Ever tried to support special kernel rpms > >>> like swsusp2 or ccrma's low-latency kernels? I did and know it works > >>> for kmdl and will fail with kmod. > >> I looked into this once and I'd like to give people a bit more > >> background from my point of view: > >> > >> Yes, kmod fails for the swsusp2 kernel from http://mhensler.de/swsusp/. > >> But that's not directly a bug/problem in kmod. kmods would work if the > >> swsusp2 kernel would be packaged exactly in the same way as the FC > >> kernels are packaged. But that's not the case. > > > > which was done deliberately to not conflict with having the same name > > with a Fedora package, just as the highest mandate coming from Fedora > > to 3rd parties is, right? > > Right, but it can be done in different ways, e.g. in a ways, that > follows the general naming and file-placing behavior from the Fedora > kernels or in ways that differ -- in case of the swsusp the latter was > chosen. Just outline a way that custom kernel packages could be created Fedora-conform and be supported by kmods, because I just stated in the mail you replied to, that this is impossible: If you follow Fedora compliance you lose kmod support, if you follow kmod compliance you lose Fedora compliance. I also showed real life examples for all cases. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpi7TMabcOum.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
