ATrpms' kernel modules (kmdls)

Thomas Vander Stichele thomas at
Wed Apr 26 13:41:57 UTC 2006

> The dilemma is, that the methology used at ATrpms differs in some
> fundamental design parts from what is the current proposal, mostly the
> one spec/src.rpm for both userland and kmdl builds and simple
> unprepared upstream Sources:, and further derived concept
> bits.
> ATrpms' concept also supports RHEL3 and earlier FCs and even RHL
> releases (e.g. not dependending on availability of kernel-devel which
> doesn't exist for these distributions).
> So my options are
> o convince people about adopting ATrpms' methology
>   good: field-proven, easy maintenance, many users already accustomed
> 	to kmdls, works on RHEL3 and legacy, too
>   bad: Thorsten has put a lot of work in the current proposal,
>        different buildsystem adaption, danger of endless discussions

So why have this discussion *now* and not when thl and ville were
working on it ?


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list