rpm naming

Gary_Lerhaupt@Dell.com Gary_Lerhaupt@Dell.com
Tue Dec 9 17:04:01 2003

The sample.spec is somewhat out of date and will be aligned in the next
release (good to be kept on my toes here).  The convention should be

If your package cannot work on a non-x86 arch, then you should of course not
use noarch.  The general idea is that packagers should keep their code such
that it works cross-arch and thus the noarch recommendation.

I'm not real sure on the other package naming topics you brought up towards
the end.  You might consider making two separate packages with mutual
dependencies on each other, but that's still pretty messy.  Perhaps someone
else here might have some good ideas.

> The sample.spec and package-specific spec files that I've 
> found show the 
> package name as %{module}_dkms.  The man page says the 
> package should be 
> named <package>-<version>-<rpm-version>dkms.noarch.rpm.  This 
> brings up a few 
> questions.
> So far, I'm naming my NVIDIA graphics package nvgfx.  It is 
> built around the 
> NVIDIA install package for "IA32", e.g. x86.  My package 
> therefore is *not* 
> noarch, but i386.  The man page's global recommendation of 
> noarch seems 
> incorrect.
> My next question is, should my package be 
> nvgfx_dkms-1.0.4496-1.i386.rpm, or 
> should it be nvgfx-1.0.4496-1dkms.i386.rpm?  The man page and 
> existing spec 
> files disagree.
> And finally, if it's nvgfx_dkms, do you consider the 
> underscore a necessary 
> convention, as opposed to, say a dash, which I find much 
> easier to type?  I 
> am aware of no problem with using a dash.
> The man pages and existing spec files should be brought into 
> sync with each 
> other.
> One last request for advice: the NVIDIA package (as provided 
> by NVIDIA; but 
> it's not an rpm) contains both a kernel module and some X library 
> replacements and additions.  I don't see a clean way, nor a 
> compelling reason 
> to split it into two packages.  But that brings up the 
> question of the 
> package name.  The final NVIDIA driver kernel module name is 
> nvidia.o.  It 
> seems like the convention is to take the module name from the 
> object file 
> name, so in this case the module is named "nvidia".
> But then I build the RPM which contains both the kernel 
> module and the X libs, 
> and the X lib files have various names so perhaps "nvidia" is not an 
> appropriate package name.  Another consideration: there are 
> other NVIDIA 
> products which may one day have kernel drivers (the 
> AMD-supporting NVIDIA 
> chipsets come to mind), and "nvidia" is a pretty generic name in this 
> context.
> That's why I chose "nvgfx" (gfx=graphics).  Do you think this 
> makes sense as a 
> package name?
> Perhaps another list (e.g. RH's rpm-list or 
> fedora-devel-list) might be more 
> appropriate places to ask these latter package-naming 
> questions, but I 
> thought I'd check with you guys first to see what you thought.
> Thanks!
> David
> _______________________________________________
> DKMS-devel mailing list
> DKMS-devel@lists.us.dell.com
> http://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/dkms-devel