http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #9 from Chris Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-30 22:55:32 --- (In reply to comment #8) > > What is the reasoning behind using two SRPMs when one seems to do the job? > > Two reasons: > > (1) It prevents that the package with that contains the userland part gets > rebuilt everytime new kmods get build > > (2) The userland packages doesn't get built for i586 and i686 > > [...] Thank you Thorsten, that makes sense. I've repackaged it up into two separate SRPMs and fixed a couple of problems along the way: broadcom-wl: http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl.spec http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl-5.10.27.6-1.fc9.src.rpm wl-kmod: http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/wl-kmod.spec http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/wl-kmod-5.10.27.6-3.fc9.src.rpm Here are the rpmlint results: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint broadcom-wl.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint broadcom-wl-5.10.27.6-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] noarch]$ rpmlint broadcom-wl-5.10.27.6-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint wl-kmod.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint wl-kmod-5.10.27.6-3.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64]$ rpmlint kmod-wl-5.10.27.6-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64]$ rpmlint kmod-wl-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64-5.10.27.6-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation kmod-wl-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized wl kernel module(s) for 2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64 kmod-wl-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /lib/modules/2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Best Chris -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
