On Saturday 12 December 2009 12:15:13, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:06:22 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote: > > should dkms somehow enforce this (via an appropriate set of > > dependencies)? a lot of users are going to do the exact same thing > > when updating their kernel, and you may get a lot of similar bug > > reports. you could reduce their pain and yours by doing a little more > > automagic. > > i see the dependencies are already there. this is more of a problem > with the fact tha linux-headers-2.6-* still points to > linux-headers-2.6.31-*, which really isn't dkms's fault. please > disregard my last messages.
Keep in mind that those are "just" Recommends. The idea of using /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms still applies, read my other reply :-) > thanks for the info and quick response! You're welcome. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
