On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:35:14PM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:42 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 11:26 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:04 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:40 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > > > As an aside, I didn't think Extras was ready to tackle the
> > > > > kernel module packages yet.
> > > >
> > > > Right, at least three issues remain: how to name the modules, how to
> > > > make depsolvers do the right thing with them, and how to request
> > > > for i586 and i686 from the build system for the same package.
> > >
> > > Screw i586 for now.
> > I'll screw it once the i586 kernel is screwed from FC :) Seriously,
> > there are cases where i586 and external kernel modules are a valid
> > scenario;
> As architectures actually are switched outside of rpm-specs
> (rpmbuild --target=..) this isn't a packaging issue, but actually is a
> build system issue.
> I.e. the buildsystem has to be equipped with means to specify
> architectures, because rpm specs can't handle it.
It's also an rpmdb issue as you (or at least *I*) can't have
kernel-devel.i586 and kernel-devel.i686 installed simultaneously even
though there are no file conflicts between the packages.
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez(a)ivazquez.net>
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
To me this is really a multilib issue. Multiple packages with the same
name installed but built for different arches. The spec file needs to
be able to require the kernel-devel packages of the same arch as the
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Jack Neely <slack(a)quackmaster.net>
Realm Linux Administration and Development
PAMS Computer Operations at NC State University
GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89