On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 13:29 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Chris Tyler <chris(a)tylers.info> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 09:54 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> >> Similar package (fake-build-provides , ) is required in koji on
> >> platforms where 32bit userspace lives with 64bit-only kernel (sparc and
> >> s390x) so I may be worth adding such package to the collection and track
> >> the changes in dist-git instead of using an ad-hocs rpms.
> > Shouldn't fake-kernel be a subpackage of kernel?
> Certainly seems to be the obvious way to deal with it.
That sounds reasonable and obvious, but I was thinking that wouldn't fly
with the kernel maintainers...how about we ask them (copied).
Folks: we currently don't have a kernel package in Fedora ARM. Several
people are working on fixing this by working on kernel images that
support various targets, and it will be excellent to get to a point
where we can ask you to endorse a couple of subpackage ARM kernel
variants like -omap perhaps by having a branch on the official kernel
package that can carry some of the bits being worked on in a more
official capacity than them living in separate packages, eventually.
That will combine with support for ARM kernel unification and DeviceTree
upstream so that eventually, we can do a single kernel image for
most/many ARM systems (esp. v7 systems). But for some while yet, there
will be some systems for which we have no useful ARM kernel package.
Currently, Fedora ARM carries a special package that just provides fake
deps (and we're not alone in this, other secondaries have fake deps
packages for other stuff, so there is precedent for doing this).
What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage
that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?