Re: Broadcom hybrid_wl driver

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 27.10.2008 12:15, Chris Nolan wrote: >> As an end user I find that slightly confusing to have so many >> different permutations. I would find it less confusing to do your >> original way and drop the "hybrid" altogether: >> >> "kmod-wl" for the kmod package >> "broadcom-wl" for the "userland" package > Sounds good. > >> which provides broadcom-wl-common = %{version}-%{release} > That nevertheless needs to provide "wl-kmod-common = > %{version}-%{release}" to satisfy the dep that automatically (by the > dark magic from kmodtool) gets added to each kmod package; but the > user normally won't see that. I have done this, but just to be clear, does this mean that xxx-kmod-common is automatically added as a dependency to any xxx-kmod package,

and if so, is it safe to remove Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} from the spec file?

Also, if that is the case, what if there was no xxx-kmod-common package actually required? (this package only needs one because of the requirement to bundle the license.txt)