On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 07:56:45PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > If you want more drivers, either tweak the FILES and Config.in files > > > in mkpatch, or build the modules directly in the lm_sensors > > > directory instead of patching the kernel. > > > > What do you think is better for an rpm (and what is better supported > > by you in general)? > I would use solution 2. This is what I do as a user. It doesn't change a > thing as far as packaging is concerned. You may build the modules inside > the lm_sensors tree rather than inside the kernel tree, they still end > up in /lib/modules, where they have to be. The only difference is that > you can't choose which module you want to install with solution 2, but > being packaging a kernel, you obviously don't want to exclude any driver > anyway. Ok, the packaging scheme looks like the following: lm_sensors-2.8.x-...: Contains userland stuff. lm_sensors-kmdl-2.4.20-20_29...-2.8.x-...: Contains kernel modules built for the kernel version embedded in the rpm name. I.e. there will be one main non-kernel rpm and several kmdl rpms (one for each supported kernel rpm). The userland and kernel rpms would be built out of the same src.rpm with different passes. > > OK, sounds reasonable, what do you think, Jean? > > Yes, let's go. Either you switch so solution 2, or you wait for us to > update our list, if nobody on the list objects it, of course. I will attack it in about a week, as I am currently on the road again. -- 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/20031001/6775a2e3/attachment.bin
