On Monday 18 August 2008 03:09:13 pm Axel Thimm wrote: > Why not do it with kmdls from the start? Later one needs to cater for > upgrade paths from the non-kmdl packaging etc.
no real reason. i just don't have my system set up for that. i only build a few packages and mostly have them customized for my needs -- zaptel, for example, removing the modules/tools i'll never use. i do it mostly for a learning experience. > Also w/o having yet looked into it, I assume that dahdi builds are not > that much different than zaptel's, so one could probably just adjust > the named in the zaptel specfile and use that as a first iteration > (but as said these are just assertions made w/o having looked at dahdi > closer, yet). well, the build is easy and goes well. their numbering scheme and release scheme is less than ideal for rpm bulding. i do think it'll be a bit simpler after the release candidate portions are over as making the package names compatible with the fedora package naming guidelines will become simpler. the spec file i sent has all the file list all the files that are built, so at least that my be of help. -- Anthony - http://messinet.com - http://messinet.com/~amessina/gallery 8F89 5E72 8DF0 BCF0 10BE 9967 92DC 35DC B001 4A4E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
