Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that all of the solutions I discussed involved this complexity.
> I was objecting to your implication that setting up module source
> packages was as simple as setting up arch-specific kernel image
> packages, not saying the complexity was unnecessary.
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is misleading. The kernel-image-*-arch packages are much
>> simpler because they do not depend both on a kernel source
>> package and on a module deb package. Also, n
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is misleading. The kernel-image-*-arch packages are much simpler
> because they do not depend both on a kernel source package and on a
> module deb package. Also, note that this maximizes work for the
How does that make it more complex?
> issues.
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> BTW, this is how the kernel images are organised on
Herbert> alpha/i386/sparc.
This is misleading. The kernel-image-*-arch packages are much simpler
because they do not depend both on a kernel source package and on a
mod
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see three options. We can have the modules built out of the main
> source package that also produces the architecture: all package
> containing the tarball for end users to use with kernel-package.
> Alternatively, we can have a separate modules source p
5 matches
Mail list logo
