[arch-dev-public] kernel module guidelines
Should we add some material to the Arch Packaging Guidelines in the wiki describing the preferred structure of kernel module packages? That is, thing + thing-utils, where thing depends on thing-utils, and allows thing-otherkernel to provide thing and depend on thing-utils? I'm happy to take a crack at adding that language, just wanted to sanity check if there's some reason we don't have that in there. - P
On 10/24/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Should we add some material to the Arch Packaging Guidelines in the wiki describing the preferred structure of kernel module packages? That is, thing + thing-utils, where thing depends on thing-utils, and allows thing-otherkernel to provide thing and depend on thing-utils?
I'm happy to take a crack at adding that language, just wanted to sanity check if there's some reason we don't have that in there.
- P
Just do it, sounds smart to me. -Dan
On 10/24/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Should we add some material to the Arch Packaging Guidelines in the wiki describing the preferred structure of kernel module packages? That is, thing + thing-utils, where thing depends on thing-utils, and allows thing-otherkernel to provide thing and depend on thing-utils?
I'm happy to take a crack at adding that language, just wanted to sanity check if there's some reason we don't have that in there.
- P
Just do it, sounds smart to me.
Ya ya!
On Thu, October 25, 2007 02:43, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 10/24/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Should we add some material to the Arch Packaging Guidelines in the wiki describing the preferred structure of kernel module packages? That is, thing + thing-utils, where thing depends on thing-utils, and allows thing-otherkernel to provide thing and depend on thing-utils?
I'm happy to take a crack at adding that language, just wanted to sanity check if there's some reason we don't have that in there.
- P
Just do it, sounds smart to me.
Ya ya!
Wrote some of these a year or two back but nobody really cared. May need some minor updates but the principles certainly still hold. Possibly slightly strong, but they have good reason. In txt and arch doc formats (yeah, we actually have a documentation format!) http://src.iphitus.org/doc-kmod/
James Rayner wrote:
On Thu, October 25, 2007 02:43, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 10/24/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Should we add some material to the Arch Packaging Guidelines in the wiki describing the preferred structure of kernel module packages? That is, thing + thing-utils, where thing depends on thing-utils, and allows thing-otherkernel to provide thing and depend on thing-utils?
I'm happy to take a crack at adding that language, just wanted to sanity check if there's some reason we don't have that in there.
- P Just do it, sounds smart to me. Ya ya!
Wrote some of these a year or two back but nobody really cared. May need some minor updates but the principles certainly still hold. Possibly slightly strong, but they have good reason. In txt and arch doc formats (yeah, we actually have a documentation format!)
I wrote some as part of the Packaging Guidelines wiki pages, but I'll look at yours when I have a chance and try to integrate them! Best, Paul
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
James Rayner
-
Paul Mattal