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.
Hi Thorsten
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)
Regardless, I've made some changes and put a review request in:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
Best
Chris