On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephan Wiesand
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>>> The last change was made because I just couldn't stand it that the SRPM could be rebuilt against a different kernel (possibly with an incompatible ABI), resulting in packages with exactly the same n-v-r but very different content. And to avoid the need to touch the spec every time modules for a new kernel are rolled out. So what happens is that the release part of the target kernel's `uname -r`, without the gratuitous architecture and the dist tag, is appended to the kmod's release. This allows for clean updates when the module is built for a later kernel, and to install the right debuginfo package if you have to. But it's different from elrepo.
>> [...]
>>> This is possibly the greatest part of this source rpm.  Thank you for making an rpm that is able to do both the old and new way.  I know it's a lot of work.
>>
>> Glad you like it.
>>
>> Since I have very limited experience with these kmods, it would be really great to hear from the elrepo folks whether/why the above changes are stupid. Alan, Akemi, Dag, ..., are you reading?
>
> We are reading  :-)  But we have not been following up quite well :-(
> We would be happy to discuss with you as soon as we digest the
> details.

Hi Stephan,

Jack Neely wrote to the elrepo-devel list and offered to contribute
the openafs packages to ELRepo.  So, most likely, he is going to be
the maintainer for ELRepo.

We have yet to publish the packages from the srpms Jack submitted, but
are you going to maintain yours for SL? Or you'd rather join us?
Whichever the case, I think we can help each other.

Akemi