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

Re: Summary from yesterdays fesco meeting

On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 15:34 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 17.02.2006, 16:16 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 20:39 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >  * Kernel module standardization
> > >   * Should archs be hardcoded with a "ExclusiveArch: i586 i686 x86_64
> > > ppc" or similar entries? That's how it is done in beehive, but scop
> > > doesn't like that idea to much. Warren will ask dcbw if there are
> > > alternatives.
> > 
> > Warren poked me, here's my response:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >[...]
> > a) Let packages do whatever the heck they want with their Exclusive,
> > Exclude, BuildArch tags, including using %{ix86} as Mike suggests
> > b) Have the buildsystem recognize kmod packages somehow (which we have
> > to do anyway), then filter kmod packages through a "supported" list of
> > sub-arches, including i586, i686, x86_64, ppc, athlon.  There's some
> > support for this already in the buildsystem.
> >[...]
> > Let me know what you think.
> Sound good to me. Any ideas what we need to achieve b) ? There is
> nothing in the current kernel-module proposal that would help with that
> (besides the "kmod" in the name).

A custom specfile tag?  :)

Seriously though, if there are some simple rules for -kmod, like (these
are just suggestions):

1) The string '-kmod' MUST be the last part of the package name
2) The package MUST BuildRequire the 'kernel' and 'kernel-devel'

That would help.  We can pull and analyze any tags we want out of the
SRPM headers, we just need to rules use in recognition.


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