GFS removed??? (was: rawhide report: 20050315 changes)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Mar 17 09:30:19 UTC 2005


On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:54:24PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > It doesn't use kernel-devel (since no such thing exists for FC <= 3),
> > but a similar approach embedded into ATrpms' build system allowing to
> > access kernel source configured and prepared for the targetted kernel.
> 
> or you could just read ville's post about this to fedora-maintainers or
> -extras iirc.

Well, Ville wanted to subscribe me to fedora-maintainers two weeks
ago, but obviously this was not possible.

W/o knowing the contents of his post, the situation is that there are
working mechanisms in the field giving a semi-defacto standard. If
there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, adopting it would be the
cleanest and easiest solution.

BTW there is a bad list inflation at fedora that clutters topics
across them. You mentioned two others, fedora-devel could be as well a
candidate (after all we are discussing right now on this), as well as
fedora-packaging. I understand why the lists are being created, but
probably having that many lists is hurting more than it serves. Just
my 2¢.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050317/924c365e/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list