On Tuesday 18 February 2003 09:19 pm, Tom Eastep wrote: > I rather favor a mechanism whereby package->module dependencies can be > expressed in the package. Including kernel modules in .lrp's like ppp, > pppoa or shorwall (just to name one) will yield nightmarish results when > we try to introduce a new kernel version. > > -Tom
I agree 100% with Tom. Some form of dependancy stating/checking is already on the board when the packaging format gets changed. The last thing you would _ever_ want to do is stick a kernel module within a package. Some packages change themselves to what form of modular dependancy/patching is needed from version to version, Allowing a 'dep check' would allow much easier updating on all fronts. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Firewall Project developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
