[Bug 20] Review request: blcr-kmod - kmod for Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20 --- Comment #8 from Neal Becker 2009-01-03 14:35:31 --- In part due to our prodding, the upstream has fixed the -fno-stack-protector issue. When the new version is released with this fix (should be soon), I'll update and resubmit. This will eliminate the need for running reconfigure. -- 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.
[Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #27 from Thorsten Leemhuis 2009-01-03 13:43:02 --- (In reply to comment #25) > http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec > http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod.spec > http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-0.8.0-0.2.b5.fc10.src.rpm > http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod-0.8.0-0.1.b5.fc10.src.rpm Made some comments on the kmod in Bug 20; waiting with CVS branching til kmod is ready One further note about http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec, which contains: > #Generic i386 is NOT supported > ExclusiveArch: i486 i586 i686 athlon x86_64 ppc ppc64 arm I see it was discussed, but is that really needed? The buildsys will build the package for i486 i586 i686 athlon due to this, which confuses people, as they won't know which one to use. Isn't a i686 package sufficient if i386 doesn't work? What about pentium3 and pentium4? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 20] Review request: blcr-kmod - kmod for Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20 Thorsten Leemhuis changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|2 |3 --- Comment #7 from Thorsten Leemhuis 2009-01-03 13:34:43 --- Some comments on: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod-0.8.0-0.1.b5.fc10.src.rpm - is patch0 really relevant for the kernel modules? If not it would be better to remove it to get rid of the BR for autoconf automake and libtool, as all users of the akmod package would need to install those (that alone is bad already; but it also slows compiling the akmod down a lot) - getting rid of the whole configure stuff (or at least some of it) would be really nice to speed akmod compilation up (most of that is not relevant for the kmod in any case) - if patch0 needs to stay then a special macro needs to be set to get the BRs into the akmod; e.g. %define AkmodsBuildRequires autoconf automake libtool For an example see http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/madwifi-kmod/devel/madwifi-kmod.spec?root=nonfree&view=markup - Cosmetic: Please include the first 6 lines from http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/madwifi-kmod/devel/madwifi-kmod.spec?root=nonfree&view=markup and get rid of the old comment that is in the spec file right now -- 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.
