Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
/ 2004-03-23 09:27:17 -0500 \ Todd Denniston: > Lars Ellenberg wrote: > > > > / 2004-03-23 09:53:33 +0100 > > \ Philipp Reisner: > <SNIP> > > > Lars, David, Philipp: Any oppinions on how the sources should be layed out, > > > from the viewpoint of a package maintainer ? > > > > We could as well "split" it into a kernel patch, and the user level tools. > > > <SNIP> > I don't think this is exactly what you are talking about, but it is related. > As just a User, I would like to see a kernel module and user level tools > split, on an rpm's produced level. > > The reason: so I can upgrade kernels, install the newly built drbd module rpm > and not have to --force the install because it also includes the drbd tools. > Note: this is using the same drbd release. Granted the tools rpm should > probably depend on the version of the module installed so the api is known to > match. SuSE had this split since they included DRBD into their release. I thinkg Debian has this split, too. I don't know about RH or others. The suggested drbd.spec in the DRBD source tar ball has this split since 0.6.10 or something. But this is the *binary* distribution, and the package maintainer should take care of such issues... We talked about the most convenient source layout from the viewpoint of a package maintainer. Lars Ellenberg