On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:38:20AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
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)
which is rather broken due to not embedding uname -r into the package
name. :(
And this probably shows once again that having too many lists is a
Real Bad Thing. fedora-packaging creates a (broken) standard for
kernel modules while fedora-maintainers creates a standard for the
infrastructure that these packages are supposed to use. Both
discussions have to be carried on the same list.
> 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...
There is a working solution at ATrpms.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net