[Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285


Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fedora at leemhuis.info




--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>  2009-01-11 13:56:26 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Created an attachment (id=67)
 --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=67) [details] [details]
> > Small improvements for VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
> > Just a few notes (I just wanted to look at the kmod):
> > - I could not rebuild VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm on F10, x86_64:
> Fixed.

thx

> > - why isn't the src for the kernel-module part of the VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
> > package? That how it's done for all the other kmods. But maybe doing what you
> > might have some benefits as well (smaller srpms mainly).
> Smaller srpms were not a motivation.

But they might make things easier/nicer for other kmods. But that is a
different topic and would need to be discussed somewhere else

> Honestly, I was only aware of drawbacks :)
> Such as needlessly rebuilding both packages when in need of patching the kmod
> (which happened now).

Can't follow. What prevents you from applying patches to the kmod sources after
copying them into the rpm builddir?

> However, the buildable module source tree is generated during the build of the
> main package. It can't be easily decoupled from the main package build, so
> solving it this way seemed sane to me.

Well, the nvidia or fglrx maintainers manually strip them; that a little bit
more work afaics, but works. 

But whatever, I'm fine with this scheme. Just one remaining question to the
subscribers of rpmfusion-package-review: Is everybody fine with the package
suffix "-kmodsrc"?

> (In reply to comment #3)
> [...]
> I'm wondering if mock used by plague would allow us to
> depend on glibc-devel.i386 and let us install it?

Right now all ix86 packages get excluded. But that could be changed if there
are good reasons to.


-- 
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.