kernel & userland tools work very well! Thanks for all the advice so far. I am now resolving some last packaging questions: o libsensors.so.1 compatibility: Some packages are dynamically linked to pre-2.8.0 lm_sensors. I would now package that into a lm_sensors270-2.7.0 compatibility package (RH naming convention for compat. versions). Will the tools interface over libsensors.so.1 function properly, or at all? o [lm_sensors-]sensord A year ago I started packaging sensord with an lm_sensors prefix. I am now considering dropping the prefix to simplify the name (with the resp. steps involved in packaging resolution). Is that a bad idea? On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > Is anyone working on this? If not, I'd be interested (I have been > maintaining rpms for kernel and userland parts for i2c/lm_sensors > 2.7.0 at atrpms). > > I am already trying to patch the i2c core and surrounding patches into > the latest RH errata kernel (based on 2.4.21-pre3). I might have a > question or two, and could use testers, since I am doing it upon > request, and the machines I currently have available aren't that > sensor friendly (one is a Thinkpad ...). -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20030807/66a2ca92/attachment.bin
