[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: No more kernel-source(code) ??? (was: rawhide report: 20040623 changes)


> The idea is to have kernel module src.rpms with
> Requires: kernel-devel >= 2.6.0
> and have the external build-system provide the matching rpms and
> --define 'kernelsrcdir /a/b/c' for which path to chose for building
> kernel modules against.

The build system does not need to provide kernelsrcdir if the location
where the build files are stored has a decent name.  (As a side note,
*please* don't call it kernelsrcdir, it contains *binary stuff*)

The spec file already has all the info to distinguish what type and arch
to build for (up/smp and i586/i686), so just give sensible names to the
path and it's solved.

> Having kernel module specfile for each kernel series defeats the
> purpose of specfile invariance across kernels.

... and solves this too (take a look at my kernel-module-devel

> You also want to provide users with a uniform way to build their own
> kernels and kernel-headers/devel packages, so you don't have much
> choice than to do it per kernel and not bundled.

Nope, already works, and they're bundled.

Splitting them up has the added disadvantage that you have a lot of
double/triple/quadruple copies of files as well.


Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
- There it is. Ten thousand dollars. You're not gonna count it?
- Nah.
- You trust me?
- No. But I do kill people.
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]