On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:25:23PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Could you please explain this part of the diff?
> > --- kqemu-1.3.0~pre9/debian/control.modules.in > > +++ kqemu-1.3.0~pre9/debian/control.modules.in > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ > > Package: kqemu-modules-_KVERS_ > > Architecture: any > > -Depends: linux-image-_KVERS_ > > +Depends: linux-modules-_KVERS_, kqemu-common > > Recommends: qemu (>= 0.8.1) > > Provides: kqemu-modules > > Description: kqemu modules for Linux (kernel _KVERS_). > this is like all the newer modules are declaring their depends to the > kernel. it has no effect as linux-image is pulled in anyway by this. Ok, with the clarification about xen I'm ok with this. > > + > > + mkdir debian/kqemu-common/dev > > + mknod debian/kqemu-common/dev/kqemu c 250 0 > > + chmod 0666 debian/kqemu-common/dev/kqemu > > + > > this is a policy violation. You're not allowed to ship device nodes in a > > package. > then, i was misinterpreting the advice i was given before, fixed in -9, > thanks. And -9 looks ok overall, except for one small problem: + configure) + echo -n " * creating /dev/kqemu: " + + mknod /dev/kqemu c 250 0 + chmod 0666 dev/kqemu + + echo "done." + ;; Missing / in the chmod call -- maintainer scripts aren't guaranteed to be called with / as $PWD. Please fix this and I'll push it in. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
