Josh Boyer (jwboyer(a)gmail.com) said:
> You'd want to do it something like that.
>
> kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as you
> say.
>
>
> I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both of
those
> and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just get the "kernel"
> metapackage when a transaction asks for something to provide "kernel",
but
> if you explicitly ask for kernel-minimal you'd get just the minimal.
>
> This would all be done from one kernel spec and built out at the same time.
> We've got a lot of new infrastructure coming for kernel builds and we don't
> want to make things even more complicated by having to do multiple rpm build
> runs.
All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
though. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain.
The idea that Dave, Justin, and Kevin all had simlutaneously about
doing a 'kernel-virtguest' might be worthwhile if someone wants to
spend time poking at a config, etc.
That also works with the normal paradigm where all the variants provide
'kernel' for RPM dependency purposes; if you try to have a kernel-minimal that
provides 'kernel' while also having a 'kernel' package that requires
'kernel-minimal', things get a bit more strange.
Bill