Re: Broadcom hybrid_wl driver
On 27.10.2008 04:03, Jarod Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 00:22 +0000, Chris Nolan wrote:
> Jarod, Thorsten et al, couple of questions for you guys...
[...]
> Now I have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) What should the package be called? I'm not thrilled with
> "hybrid_wl-kmod" because I don't think it is descriptive to the
> end-user. I suggest "broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod" which keeps in tune with
> an unofficial SUSE package and also seems to be more descriptive. Are
> there any guidelines for this? Any suggestions?
I actually started out calling it that as well, then flipped back and
forth a time or two. I think either one is fine. Shorter is good, but so
is descriptive.
+1
Just a note: Most kmods just are called like the kernel-module (which
iirc is called wl in this case). Maybe doing exactly that here as well
might be wise -- especially as "hybrid" will be meaningless for most people.
> 2) The SRPM builds the following packages:
>
> kmod-broadcom-hybrid-wl-5.10.27.6-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
> kmod-broadcom-hybrid-wl-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64-5.10.27.6-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
> broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod-common-5.10.27.6-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
Please don't use the term "-kmod-common" in the package name; just call
it "broadcom-hybrid-wl" and add
Provides: broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod-common = %{version}-%{release}
Thinking about it some more: Maybe the best scheme for both packages
might be:
"kmod-wl" for the kmod package
"broadcom-hybrid-wl" for the second "userland" package (which then
needs
to provide wl-kmod-common = %{version}-%{release})
Opinions?
> broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod-debuginfo-5.10.27.6-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm
>
> I don't fully understand the first two - the second one contains the
> actual kernel module but
>
> a) why is the name of the second package formed like it is - I am
> supposing that it is because it is built for a specific kernel version?
Correct. The first is the base package. People say 'yum install
kmod-broadcom-hybrid_wl', and get that package, and the latest
kernel-specific one, which is what the second package is. The
2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64 in the name is actually the uname -r for the
kernel it was built for.
> b) what is the first package for? it is empty!
Virtual package, so people don't have to request the driver including
the kernel version. (The kernel version in there is actually part of the
rpm name, not part of the rpm version).
More important: that empty package always tracks in the latest kmod
package (the one with the modules in it) automatically on update; that
would not happen otherwise due to the "uname -r" in the name of the
package which holds the modules.
CU
knurd