Re: pppd 2.3.5 (was RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink)

1999-01-24 Thread Remco Blaakmeer
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:

 On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
 
  The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
  ppp1 and ppp2?  That sounds like trouble to me.
 
 Real Question (not a snipe):  Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
 current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image?  Why have
 two packages?
 
 I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is
 fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the
 kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a
 big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd
 anyway!

No, the kernel-2.2.0 package should not depend on the new pppd package,
since it is perfectly usable without pppd for people who don't use pppd.
Instead, the kernel-2.2.0 package should conflict with the old pppd
package.

(The real issue is not that a 2.2 kernel needs the new pppd package to
work, but that it doesn't work with the old pppd package.)

Remco



pppd 2.3.5 (was RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink)

1999-01-22 Thread Ed Boraas
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:

 The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
 ppp1 and ppp2?  That sounds like trouble to me.

Real Question (not a snipe):  Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image?  Why have
two packages?

I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is
fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the
kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a
big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd
anyway!

-ed