[Fedora-packaging] Updated kernel-module-packaging example with ndiswrapper (Was: example kernel-module package)

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Wed Jul 6 13:24:46 UTC 2005

On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 10:00 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:12 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > 
> > > There are variables like build host, build time, file timestamps, file
> > > modes, --define's passed to the srpm build, possibly other buildsys
> > > configuration variations etc.  All of which are sort of cosmetic, but
> > > nevertheless result in a different source rpm.
> > 
> > I'm really not worried about cosmetic changes. None of these things
> > should affect the binary packages generated from that src.rpm. 
> --defines end up in various dependencies of the source rpm, which does
> not matter as long as one doesn't use its dependencies for anything, but
> the specfile's instead.  (This is not limited to these packages.)
> The original question remains though; what to do with the srpms?
> Discard or overwrite the ones already in the repo?  My +1 to the former,
> or more generally: never overwrite any package in the repository.

Personally, since the buildsystem is going to have to treat
kernel-module-* packages differently, I'd like to see it build them like

When a make build is done in kernel-module-foo/FC-3/, the buildsystem
assembles the sources and makes a SRPM. It then looks at a list (either
generated at buildtime, or preexistant) of the released kernels for
FC-3, and iterates through each of them, running rpmbuild --rebuild
--define "kver $VERSION". At the end of the loop, we should have all the
binary packages and a single SRPM.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 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-packaging mailing list