Broadcom hybrid_wl driver

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at
Tue Oct 28 06:48:42 CET 2008

On 27.10.2008 21:48, Chris Nolan wrote:
> 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)

It was decided ages ago that a userland package (that provides that 
-common stuff) is mandatory, as every module has docs or other things 
that need to be shipped somewhere.


More information about the rpmfusion-developers mailing list