[Fedora-packaging] Re: kmdl proposal and kmod flaws

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:27:11AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> > NC State University.  Duke.  I believe Matt at Boston U. has used this
> > approch in the past as well.
> 
> My current approach is to build a subpackage containing kernel modules for
> the latest three kernels all bundled together. This is horrible but works
> fine in our environment. (And, works perfectly fine with buildrequires and
> makes repeatable builds without passing in special parameters on the build
> command line.)

doesn't this imply that the kernels are also effectively bundled?

> (If we wanted to have both i586 and i686 kernels, there would be a problem,
> but we simply don't support i586.)

:/

> I was working on updating to the Fedora standard, but it's a lot of work and
> the incentive isn't high. :)
> 
> I am inclined to believe the only real solution here is to get the in-kernel
> AFS client up to snuff and abandon the OpenAFS kernel module. I don't know
> when this will happen, but I think it's easier than solving this problem. :)

It looks like everyone is only (really) interested in openafs kernel
modules. How about

	     http://atrpms.net/name/openafs/

These are openafs kmdls for FC3-FC5 and RHEL4 (FC6 is being worked
on). Less than RH9 was abandoned and RHEL3 could be resurrected (there
were some issues with x86_64) if there were anyone interested (but I'm
running out of licenses and need them for RHEL5).

If you have spare boxes and time and like to test you're very welcome!
-- 
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-packaging/attachments/20060809/0214eb82/attachment.sig>