On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:21 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 16:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- These macro definitions are now found in the top of the spec file:
%{!?kver: %define kver %(uname -r)} %define ksrc %{_usrsrc}/kernels/%{kver}-%{_target_cpu} %define moddir /lib/modules/%{kver}/kernel/misc %define mainpkgname ndiswrapper %define mainpkgversion 1.2 %define mainpgkrelease 1 Yes, in other packages I would not like these "mainpkg*" definitions on the top, but in this type of package I think they are helpful.
I think you're mostly right. mainpkgversion and mainpkgrelease are redundant, however. Just use Version and Release for that.
Yep.
A policy or at least guidelines exactly where to place the modules below /lib/modules/%{kver} would be nice. See the TODO item in the Wiki page.
Personally I think /lib/modules/%{kver}/kernel/... is bad, these are not modules shipped with the kernel so intruding that space feels wrong. "updates" is bad too, these aren't updates to in-kernel modules. Upstream docs (see kbuild/modules.txt in the kernel source tree) talk about "extra", but IIRC in the past people have had the interpretation that it shouldn't be used for packaged modules.
Anyway, /lib/modules/%{kver}/extra/%{mainpkgname} using the above definitions gets my vote, assuming there won't be problems with module-init-tools or other stuff with that.
The kernel-module itself is now placed in %package -n kernel-module-%{mainpkgname} So only one SRPM is created no matter how much different kernel-modules are build.
This makes sense, good thinking.
Except as described in my earlier mail to this thread, if the main package's NVR doesn't change between rebuilds, we have a problem with -debuginfo for these builds. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2005-June/msg00055.html