ATrpms' kernel modules (kmdls)
Thomas Vander Stichele
thomas at apestaart.org
Wed Apr 26 13:41:57 UTC 2006
> The dilemma is, that the methology used at ATrpms differs in some
> fundamental design parts from what is the current proposal, mostly the
> one spec/src.rpm for both userland and kmdl builds and simple
> unprepared upstream Sources:, and further derived concept
> bits.
>
> ATrpms' concept also supports RHEL3 and earlier FCs and even RHL
> releases (e.g. not dependending on availability of kernel-devel which
> doesn't exist for these distributions).
>
> So my options are
>
> o convince people about adopting ATrpms' methology
> good: field-proven, easy maintenance, many users already accustomed
> to kmdls, works on RHEL3 and legacy, too
> bad: Thorsten has put a lot of work in the current proposal,
> different buildsystem adaption, danger of endless discussions
So why have this discussion *now* and not when thl and ville were
working on it ?
Thomas
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list