On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:19:51AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > My two objections to this are scalability, and lack of comprehensiveness. > > It's not scalable because it means the maintainers of the linux-latest-2.6 > > package have to centrally keep track of every package in the archive > > providing a module metapackage; and it's not comprehensive because you say > > at the end that you only want it to list packages that are autobuilt.
> Well, the fact that I restrict it to auto-built package is precisely a > compromise in favor of scalability. Auto-built packages are already > centralized in linux-modules-* No, they aren't. Some of them are, but there's nothing prohibiting other maintainers from uploading their own kernel module packages. > > Why would it not be sufficient for the metapackages to each depend on the > > corresponding linux-image package? That eliminates the need for a central > > registry of such packages. > You could be right... do you mean something like this? > Package: <something>-modules-2.6-686 > Depends: linux-image-2.6-686 (= 2.6.21+7) > This should give the same behaviour indeed. The modules meta-package would > be broken when the linux-image-2.6 metapackages are upgraded > unsynchronized. Hmm; I guess I meant Depends: linux-image-2.6-686 (>= 2.6.21), linux-image-2.6-686 (<< 2.6.22) but I realize now that breaks when the ABI changes within an upstream kernel revision. -- 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]
