On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 22:34 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 09:30 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 21:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- create the debug-pkg ourself and don't rely on the internal rpm
solution.
[...]
If 1) is easy I'll vote for that.
I tried, was not that hard (if I didn't miss anything). Results are found at http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/kernel-module-example/ in the wiki at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/KernelModuleProposal
I like this approach the best.
I like that too, but the dilemma with the same-NEVR'd source rpm persists. I'm not sure if it's a design goal or a design flaw, but the little (ha!) pedant in me says it's the latter. To clarify:
- kernel-module-foo-1.0-1.src.rpm in repo
- check out the package from CVS, build for a new kernel -> get another kernel-module-foo-1.0-1.src.rpm which != the original
Why would the src.rpm not be the same as the original? The spec file and source tarball should be consistent, and not affected by a rebuild.
~spot