On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:52:11PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > OTOH, by not making it a "Depends:", I could end > up with a situation where installing oprofile or > prospect would work, but the tools themselves would > not because the kernel module is missing. > > The upstream author for prospect really would like > to see a "Depends:". I'm inclined to leave it the > way it is. I figure I've got two options: > > (1) Leave things alone; this implies that I'll > have to rely on the user to be smart enough > to know what to do when the tools fail because > they cannot load a kernel module that is not > present. > > (2) Enforce the dependencies via "Depends:", > requiring the kernel module and at least one > kernel-image to be installed. > > Debian Policy doesn't seem to address this sort of > issue (unless I missed it somewhere -- always possible). > Other DD's I've talked to prefer the looser restrictions > that seem to allow for a broader range of use cases.
take a look at "lirc" as example and I think it do somthing similar to what you asked for. HTH -- /*---------^-^-------------------------*----------------------------------* * ° ° * * * Ayman Negm * Debian GNU/Linux Project * * ICQ: 85532366 * http://www.debian.org * * Private: a.negm!hamburg.de * Linux/Unix arabization Project * * Debian: negm!debian.org * http:://www.arabeyes.org * *-------------------------------------*----------------------------------*/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
