[ATrpms-devel] The state of lirc...

[Jarod Wilson]

On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 12:00 -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com> wrote:
> > Remind me again... Why does atrpms continue to package lirc? Both the
> > user-space and kernel-space bits of lirc are already provided in Fedora.
> > I was prompted to ask this, because I"ve built and pushed lirc 0.8.3
> > final into fedora 8 and 9, but noted that this winds up being
> > rpm-*older* than the atrpms' ~2mo old pre-0.8.3 cvs snapshot... In my
> > eyes, there's really no justification for atrpms to continue shipping
> > lirc.
> 
> Last time I tried using lirc strictly from Fedora, I had problems with
> the lirc_serial driver. IIRC, at some point in time it wasn't included
> with the kernel. I see that it is now on my Fedora 8 machine, so I'll
> try removing the ATrpms versions of lirc and see if the upstream
> versions work.

Yep, lirc patches have been in the Fedora kernels since sometime in the
2.6.23 timeframe, including the kernel F8 originally shipped with, iirc.

(For the record, I'm the one who patched lirc into the Fedora kernel
builds, and any problems with the in-kernel drivers I'd really like to
hear about and get fixed).

> Looks like I need to grab the latest lirc from koji - not showing up
> in updates-testing yet.

I think it just got pushed that direction today, so it'll probably hit
the master repo and sync out to mirrors tonight.

I did talk with Ryan Pisani on this topic a bit, sounds like there may
be a few drivers in the ATrpms package that aren't in the kernel for
whatever reason. Assuming this is the only compelling reason for
out-of-tree builds anymore, I'd either suggest the atrpms packages only
carry those modules, or we figure out what's required to build them in
with the kernel. User-space though, I can't think of any reason for
duplication.


-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com