[elrepo-devel] a few comment about elrepo's packages

[Phil Perry]

Farkas Levente wrote:
> On 08/07/2009 01:58 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>    - we want it to be able to package multiple kernel modules (for 
>> different
>>      kABI versions) for all the main RHEL releases (8.el5, 53.el5, 
>> 92.el5,
>>      128.el5)
> 
> what's the plan for this different packages? or...
> 
>> We could use help from the community with everything we are currently
>> lacking and I would prefer that we focus on enabling users to help us,
>> rather than trying to do everything ourselves.
>>
> 
> here's my first patch to the scripts and a few comments:
> - kmp_add_requires and kmp_add_buildrequires are similar to other kmp_ 
> variable so you can add extra requires and buildrequires.

I don't see where this is going? I don't see how we can do anything 
other than ship a custom kmodtool with each package. Even if you have a 
common custom kmodtool, you still have to distribute it, so it needs to 
be a Requires (or BuildRequires), and those need to go in kmodtool so it 
has to be in the SRPM package.

> - in the spec file some trivial fix and change "+-$kvariant" to 
> "+$kvariant" since this how the kernel module dir looks like.
> 

"+-$kvariant" looks correct to me; "+$kvariant" looks like the symlink:

$ ll /usr/src/kernels/
total 124
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jul  4 12:35 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jul  4 12:35 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5-xen-x86_64
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   30 Jul  4 12:35 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5xen-x86_64 
-> 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5-xen-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jul 16 13:32 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jul 16 13:32 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5-xen-x86_64
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   29 Jul 16 13:32 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5xen-x86_64 
-> 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5-xen-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Aug  6 13:32 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Aug  6 13:32 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5-xen-x86_64
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   29 Aug  6 13:32 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5xen-x86_64 
-> 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5-xen-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 May  5 00:10 2.6.18-128.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 May  5 00:09 2.6.18-128.el5-xen-x86_64
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   25 May  5 00:09 2.6.18-128.el5xen-x86_64 -> 
2.6.18-128.el5-xen-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Aug 24 13:24 2.6.18-53.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Jul  4 12:21 2.6.18-8.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 4096 Jul  4 12:21 2.6.18-8.el5-xen-x86_64
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   23 Jul  4 12:21 2.6.18-8.el5xen-x86_64 -> 
2.6.18-8.el5-xen-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Aug 24 13:20 2.6.18-92.el5-x86_64
drwxr-xr-x  4 ajb  ajb  4096 May  5 00:00 2.6.18-92.el5-xen-x86_64


Our SPEC template is drawn from the upstream work of Jon Masters as part 
of the Red Hat Driver Update Programme:

http://dup.et.redhat.com/

and specifically template examples here:

http://www.kerneldrivers.org/RedHatKernelModulePackages

> is this acceptable for you?
> than i'll patch a few kmod to use this new schema.
> 
> anyway wouldn't it be useful to create a new packages eg: kmod-devel 
> which contains this/one common kmodtool (i prefer common kmodtool over 
> all kmod packages contains it's own kmodtool) and the template files.
> 

...and how would package kmod-foo specify kmod-devel as a build 
requirement if it has no kmodtool script? You still have to ship 
kmodtool in each SRPM (if you're not going to use 
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/kmodtool) so you may as well just make the required 
modifications therein as we currently do.