> We still need to have an eye on the space that is occupied on the > ramdisk. The udebs do not contain any unneeded modules or > documentation and in some cases they use other compile options then > their deb counterparts.
They should not be "deb/udeb counterparts" that are binary-incompatible. Read http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html for what happened to boot-floppies when people had different newt/slang versions that were binary-incompatible. > If we used the .deb we needed to pull in sdl and xlibs as well, what > is certainly not what we want. This should be done with a new directfb package, with a completely different soname, and pkglibdir (or whereever directfb stores its plugins) regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
