<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 08/06/2011 04:43 PM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+_WhHxrgKXCzJSf5KNdmbVbkEmCYLufGnzn2v+J_JH4duV_Pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thank you all for your comments regarding the kernel-ml-firmware package.
Currently:
(1) The kernel-ml packages do not "Requires" kernel-ml-firmware line.
(2) Identically to the EL5 kernel-ml-headers situation, the
kernel-ml-firmware has a "Conflicts" kernel-firmware line.
Today's status update on the package preparation process:
The "Files" section is now completed. When the following test-script
finishes executing --
for ARCH in x86_64 i686 i386 noarch; do
rpmbuild -bi --target $ARCH kernel-ml-2.6.39.spec 2>&1 \
| tee err-out-$ARCH-64-bit.log
echo ""
cp -a ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/* ~/rpmbuild/TEMP/ 2>/dev/null
echo ""
rm -fr ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/*
done
-- I have the expected directory structures present under the TEMP/
directory, all ready for the final packaging. Reading the log files
generated shows that the builds were "clean".
What remains to be done?
(1) The "%post" and "preun" scriptlets.
(2) A final "read through" and tidy up.
(3) Submission of the latest release candidate to selected testers.
(4) Etc.
Alan.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Alan,<br>
<br>
thanks for all your effort on this.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Stephen Clark<br>
<b>NetWolves</b><br>
Sr. Software Engineer III<br>
Phone: 813-579-3200<br>
Fax: 813-882-0209<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steve.clark@netwolves.com">steve.clark@netwolves.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.netwolves.com">http://www.netwolves.com</a><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>