On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 08:16:51AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 03:58:31PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > > > He did mention that they'd looked into supporting Debian, but slammed > > > > the > > > > lid back down on it after they had discovered (and I'm paraphrasing) > > > > "multiple kernels with the same version number". > > > > > > Seems like uninformed non-sense, but then maybe due to the previous messy > > > situation. I think these guys are lying when speakign about linux support > > > anyway, and only mean linux/x86 anyway. > > > > Possibly (uninformed). I didn't go into details with the guy. I don't even > > know what version of Debian they'd looked at, and yes, Linux/x86 is > > absolutely correct. These guys are coming from the world where there were > > only commercial Unices, so in that case, there'd be one commercial Unix per > > CPU architecture, so the model of distributing binaries would work. I'm not > > suggesting that it's a good model... > > Indeed. > > > > We provide the linux-headers apckage to make it as easy to build external > > > modules against those kernels as possible, so it should be no real > > > problem. > > > > As I said to the guy from CA, they're probably best doing something like > > what nVidia do with their binary video driver - compile a shim against the > > installed kernel's headers, and have their binary crap talk to that, but I > > don't know enough about their product... > > Nope, we have the infrastructure, so they can easily enough produce real > debian packages for all debian supported flavours. The idea is to : > > for a given set of architectures (probably i386 and amd64 for them, but > maybe they could do powerpc and ia64 too), build-depends on the > linux-headers-<version> package, which will :
Mmm, this one is not active on 2.6.12 kernels, at least not in -8, we need to fix that. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
