https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Kevin Fenzi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Kev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Kevin Fenzi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #13 from Chris King ---
(In reply to Justin M. Forbes from comment #12)
I am pretty much sponsored now, but I think you should probably have another
reviewer check this one over before you go forward with this, as I still feel
unde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #12 from Justin M. Forbes ---
Okay, spec and srpm updated, I made some changes to the files section to match
exactly what is currently in kernel.spec for generating this package. I am not
going to change the defines in the version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #11 from Justin M. Forbes ---
No, kernel module builds are dependent on kernel-devel that is a different
package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Justin M. Forbes from comment #5)
> Actually, it wouldn't really. And there are other advantages to not updating
> headers with every single kernel build. The headers packages are required by
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #9 from Justin M. Forbes ---
Yes, a lot of this is because this is kernel derivative the tarball itself is
actually generated in the kernel package. This package is currently being
built, just right now it is a subpackage of kerne
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #8 from Chris King ---
I am as of yet unsponsored so this is an informal review, and even if I were
sponsored, this package is a bit out of my wheelhouse. That said, hopefully my
attempted review doesn't do more harm than good.
LG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #7 from Justin M. Forbes ---
Done, though those changes have no impact on the build.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Chris King changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bunnya...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #5 from Justin M. Forbes ---
Actually, it wouldn't really. And there are other advantages to not updating
headers with every single kernel build. The headers packages are required by a
lot of container type images where the kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
--- Comment #2 from Justin M. Forbes ---
defattr may actually be useful here because the tarball is generated from a
kernel tree after make prep using a script that will live in the kernel
dist-git. It may not be necessary, but it can help avo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Jeremy Cline changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607554
Justin M. Forbes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: -|from kernel srpm)
--
You ar
16 matches
Mail list logo
