On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:42:31PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > No, a more frequent change is disabling/enabling modules [on some arch]. Even > if you were right, adding new module packages doesn't "justify" updating > other modules. Reusing the ice* example, suppose that Debian would have such > an icezoo source package and Mozilla would release a new IRC client. Adding, > say, icebear, to the packages generated by icezoo wouldn't make me happy, > because I'd have to update iceweasel even if I wouldn't use icebear. > Otherwise, I wouldn't like iceweasel updates to be blocked just because > icebear has a serious regression.
You can't compare something stupid like that, with something useful like building the kernel modules. The kernel modules are special in that they depend both on the current kernel build and on the driver providing the source. If either changes a rebuild has to be done. Normal packages that build all the binary packages in one go with no external dependancies have no reason for being build by calls in an external package. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
