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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Mar 17 10:50:00 UTC 2005


On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:38:20AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 11:28 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:11:41AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 10:30 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > > > 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.
> > > [...]
> > > > W/o knowing the contents of his post, 
> > > Axel, read:
> > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-March/msg00096.html
> > 
> > Thanks, as I see it Ville discussed setting up the infrastructure to
> > build kernel modules against. What I miss is the discussion of the
> > kernel modules themselves, e.g. what is the proposed naming/versioning
> > scheme.
> 
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
> 
> Section 9, Addon Packages (kernel modules)

which is rather broken due to not embedding uname -r into the package
name. :(

And this probably shows once again that having too many lists is a
Real Bad Thing. fedora-packaging creates a (broken) standard for
kernel modules while fedora-maintainers creates a standard for the
infrastructure that these packages are supposed to use. Both
discussions have to be carried on the same list.

> > The proposed naming from my side is foo-kmdl-`uname -r`. It's short,
> > sorts well with the rest of foo, doesn't need any
> > yum/up2date/apt/smart special handling and users have already accepted
> > this.
> 
> There was a discussion on this on one of the other fedora-lists. But
> afaik Spot is still working on the big, great, working kernel-module-
> package solution...

There is a working solution at ATrpms.
-- 
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/20050317/4f0751e9/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list