On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 09:17:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:00:13 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:39:52PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-05 23:51]:
> >> > Why should a symlink be ignored? What other stuff would
> >> > people
> >> > want to have ignored if we start on a slippery slope like this?
> >> > nividia-source, vmware, and scads of others would like to dump
> >> > stuff in /lib/modules, and the book keeping involved in keeping
> >> > track of stuff in the /lib/modules/ which is OK to ignore would
> >> > be massive.
> >>
> >> > The presence of that link is a bug, and should be fixed.
>
> > Huh ? What is going on here, the /lib/modules/<foo>/build/ link is
> > *NOT* a bug, and is part of the plan to build external modules, and
> > thus needed and advertized so. Please *DON'T* even think about
> > removing it.
>
>
> Err, I never advertized any such thing. Can you explain to my
> why the solution of kernel-headers installing scripts in
> /etc/kernel/{postinst,prerm}.d would not work?
See my other mail.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
