Broadcom hybrid_wl driver

[Jarod Wilson]

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 00:22 +0000, Chris Nolan wrote:
> Jarod, Thorsten et al, couple of questions for you guys...
> 
> I've got so far as including the required license file in a (required) 
> -common package, and made a few fixes to make rpmlint happy. I also 
> included another patch to fix the vlanmode issue.

Cool.

> 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.

> 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
> 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).



-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com