[Fedora-packaging] Re: kernel-module packaging discussing broken into pieces: One specfile approach vs. splitted spec file

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:47:41AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >Also flavours may come and go within a distribution's life cycle. For
> >example a few weeks ago "xen" was added to FC5 along "xen0". No need
> >to touch specfile/src.rpm/userland in the kmdl scheme to add
> >supportfor the newcomer. For example the sole representant of kmods in
> >FE is em8300. Where is his "xen" flavour?
> 
> You'd have to ask scop. Maybe it didn't build, don't know. But just as 
> above: there is no difference between kmdls and kmods when the buildsys 
> handles that. In the kmod case the buildsys can simply run
> 
> rpmbuild kmod-foo.src.rpm --define 'kversion 2.6.17-1.2145_FC5' --define 
> 'kvariants "" smp xen xen0 XenU bigsmp never_have_heard_of_flavor'
> 
> and it's build as long as never_have_heard_of_flavor exists -- no 
> modifications to the specfile needed.

And adding to my reply: It first looks as if the kmod scheme could now
build some flavours apart form others. But due to the bundling of
building all flavours together and sharing *one* debuginfo package for
all kmods this is impossible, or possible, but would nuke the "old"
debuginfo package from the previous build. kmdls have one debuginfo
per kmdl, therefore you can build flavour/kernels/custon
kernels/custom flavours at your own pace w/o the need to rebuild all
each time.
-- 
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/20060818/9bdc8e9b/attachment.sig>