On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide > >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. > >> > >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a > >current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image? Why have > >two packages? > > I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is > fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the > kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a > big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd > anyway!
No, the kernel-2.2.0 package should not depend on the new pppd package, since it is perfectly usable without pppd for people who don't use pppd. Instead, the kernel-2.2.0 package should conflict with the old pppd package. (The real issue is not that a 2.2 kernel needs the new pppd package to work, but that it doesn't work with the old pppd package.) Remco
