Broadcom hybrid_wl driver

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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