Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 11:28 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:11:41AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 10:30 +0100 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:54:24PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > > It doesn't use kernel-devel (since no such thing exists for FC
<= 3),
> > > > but a similar approach embedded into ATrpms' build system
allowing to
> > > > access kernel source configured and prepared for the targetted
kernel.
> > >
> > > or you could just read ville's post about this to fedora-maintainers
or
> > > -extras iirc.
> [...]
> > W/o knowing the contents of his post,
> Axel, read:
>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-March/msg00096.html
Thanks, as I see it Ville discussed setting up the infrastructure to
build kernel modules against. What I miss is the discussion of the
kernel modules themselves, e.g. what is the proposed naming/versioning
scheme.
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
Section 9, Addon Packages (kernel modules)
The proposed naming from my side is foo-kmdl-`uname -r`. It's
short,
sorts well with the rest of foo, doesn't need any
yum/up2date/apt/smart special handling and users have already accepted
this.
There was a discussion on this on one of the other fedora-lists. But
afaik Spot is still working on the big, great, working kernel-module-
package solution...