This one time, at band camp, Loïc Minier said: > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007, Stephen Gran wrote: > > bttv.h is a 'private' header, and not included in the kernel headers > > shipped in Debian. This is why there is an attempt at versioned bttv.h > > headers in lirc itself. It's a bad hack, but I'm not sure what else can > > be done. > > Ok, thanks for the explanations. I guess there are different ways to > handle this issue: > 1) make the header public and ship it in the kernel headers; not sure > this is likely to happen, no idea of the policy for such stuff > 2) ship the header in lirc; doesn't sound like a good idea > 3) document that you need a full kernel tree -- and not just kernel > headers -- to build the lirc modules; wouldn't help our users that much > I'm afraid > 4) 3 + automatically select the modules that can be built > > > I think it would be best to prepare the newest upstream release first, > and see what upstream recommends on this matter. > > I was happy to cleanup the packaging of lirc, but I can't really > prepare an upstream myself as I don't own any lirc-supported hardware; > I hope another person of the lirc team can prepare the new upstream > release and test it until we revisit this issue.
I started on some packaging work, but I'm afraid it was too ambitious and I've backed off as, as I really just don't have the time. I'm happy to stay involved in a low level way, and I will certainly test new packages, but I am realizing I can't take responibility for it. Real life is just starting to intrude too much, I'm afraid. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
