Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > I was hoping you would have made the module-source hooking into > > > kernel-package to make building it semi-automatic. I haven't figured out > > > yet just how to do it myself, but if not anything else you could maybe > > > simply throw it into the TODO :-) > > > > Please don't depend on kernel-package though. It can easily pick up the > > correct tree for the running kernel if it's 2.4.x (and even current > > 2.2.x?) using /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build . > > I am not sure I understand you correctly (or you me?). > > What I mean is set up the mol-modules-source package similar to > alsa-source and device3dfx-source (which is a small package that I have > never compiled but might be useful as reference for making it work with > kernel-package. > > At least sheep_net requires kernel-source (or kernel-headers) to build, > not only a running kernel.
/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build is a link to the tree the running kernel was built with. (Provided that make modules_install was done). That should be enough to build a kernel module. > Maybe putting sheep_net in a package for itself (that would make it > available for other architectures as well) and include the source and a > compile-script in mol-modules for the rest (which I believe I succeeded > compiling without kernel-headers available). Sounds good. > The current situation is bad: mol-modules-source creates a kernel-modules > .deb of the _same_ version as the official .deb. The naming scheme of > kernel-package (and kernellab) avoids that in most situations. I have to admit I don't really care about this as I don't use kernel nor module packages. All I'm asking for is not to impose a dependency on either. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer CS student, Free Software enthusiast \ XFree86 and DRI project member
