On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 06:03 -0500, Zephaniah E, Hull wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
[stuff deleted]
> As far as doing the 2.0 first, errrm, someone else will have to test it
> as I'm on 2.1.x kernels, I could do a quick test, but nothing overly
> extensive..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK it shouldn't matter if a package was
compiled on a 2.0 or a 2.1 machine, as long as the current kernel-headers
package is installed, and the makefile (or whatever) doesn't use
-I/usr/src/linux/include which points to the 2.1 kernel sources. As I
understand it, it was exactly for this reason that debian chose not to
make /usr/include/linux et al a symbolic link to the kernel sources...Mind
you, knowing me I have probably got the wrong end of the stick (which
means I'll have to rebuild my own package).
On the version numbering question: My package (xmahjongg) is version
number 3.0b8, which I realise now is not good for dpkg. Question is, how
do I get around this in the future? Do I call the 3.0 version 3.0.0?
Cheers
Dave
--
Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.plan: To find a job working with Linux
