Je Sat, 5 May 2001 11:09:20 -0400, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribis: > IMO, we can use alternatives. And it should be fairly easy > > update-alternatives --install /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2 kernel-headers-2.2 \ > /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.<rev> <rev> > > Where "<rev>" would be something like "19" (as in 2.2.19). This way each > newer version would be prefered over the former. The only problem I see > are the -preX releases. Someone would have to suggest how to handle that > case since the priority field wont accept letters. > > Also, I think that packages should Build-Depends on kernel-headers-X.X. > IMO, There is no reason to build-dep on anything more specific, and also > no reason to build-dep on just "kernel-headers" (IOW, maintainers should > test which kernel headers can be used). This way they can always just > do: > > CFLAGS += -I/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2/include > > And not have to worry about all the revisions, or detecting anything > special.
That's a better version of what I suggested in Bug#96359, so you have my support. Now, how are we going to support: If there's a version of libc6 that's known to use kernel headers incompatible with a particular kernel-headers-*, then a package compiled against those kernel headers should conflict with that libc6. -itai
