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

Re: Kernel module packages (was - Re: Pre-Review: Asterisk)

On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 19:38 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> > However, if the consensus is that the version number needs to appear in the n-v-r, we could 
> > overload the %{release} field with that information.
> > 
> > So:
> > Name: kernel-module-foo
> > Version: 2.6.10_3smp
> > Release: 1.0_7174.1
> I would prefer something like that. (The reason is found below). I'm
> still unsure if it should be 
> Release: 1.0_7174.1
> or
> Release: 1.1.0_7174

Seems reasonable. Your bugzilla reasoning makes sense.

Does this syntax look good to people?

%define modulever 1.0_7174

Release: 1.%{modulever}

Provides: %{name}-version = %{modulever}

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

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