On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 08:02:27PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:21:58 +0100 > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Manoj's argument : > > > > the build symlink is currently buggy, and should be either part > > of the kernel-image package or created at kernel-image install time. > > I believe sven missed to comment on this early remark by Manoj:
Nope, i did not. I spoke at lenght with Manok about this on irc, check your backlog. > > Can you explain to me why kernel-headers is not putting a > > script in /etc/kernel/postinst.d and /etc/kernel/prerm.d to > > optionally add and remove the build link? > > As I understand it, Manoj suggested to _optionally_ create/remove the > symlinks in _kernel-headers_ packages. Nope, the above scripts will be called during kernel *image* install and removal time. It is a ugly solution to what we hve now, namely the symlink accompanying the dir it links to, which is the less error prone. > > Pro : Well, i will let manoj's reply here, didn't find any pro item > > myself. > > > > Con : doesn't allow building out of tree module without installing > > linux-image for every flavour we want to build too, and as we > > were trying to make this policy for module builds ... > > Wrong - if I understand correctly that Manoj was referring to -headers > packages and not -image packages. Well, see above :) > > Martin's solution : instead of looking at > > only /lib/modules/<version> to see if modules where installed, > > actually do a find /lib/modules/<version> -name \*.ko, and search for > > real modules. > > As I understand it Martin actually agreed with Manoj in his latest > email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Yeah, but he was not aware that this breaks the plan for out-of-tree module packages, and i believe will be more bristle than what we have now. > I also believe this to be the most sane approach. Ah, can you provide any kind of arguments for it ? I mean apart from the purely esthetical onesi, which are subjective and of dubious relevance here ? > > There are other stuff involved, in that over the years, k-p has been > > more and more losing touch with the reality of the official kernel > > packages, > > ...so he now suggests to move this out to a hook instead of hardcoded > in k-p. Yeah, well, but throwing out all the way official kernels have been forced to override k-p upto now, and biasing his work toward end-users-rebuilding-their-kernels. > I certainly feel this is sane! Well, i doubt we are really interested in your feeling, arguments would be more welcome, but after you have considered the full matter :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
