Kernel module packages (was - Re: Pre-Review: Asterisk)
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Sun Apr 3 18:11:53 UTC 2005
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 19:38 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > However, if the consensus is that the version number needs to appear in the n-v-r, we could
> > overload the %{release} field with that information.
> >
> > So:
> > Name: kernel-module-foo
> > Version: 2.6.10_3smp
> > Release: 1.0_7174.1
>
> I would prefer something like that. (The reason is found below). I'm
> still unsure if it should be
>
> Release: 1.0_7174.1
> or
> Release: 1.1.0_7174
Seems reasonable. Your bugzilla reasoning makes sense.
Does this syntax look good to people?
%define modulever 1.0_7174
Release: 1.%{modulever}
Provides: %{name}-version = %{modulever}
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list