On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > 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?). [cut] > > 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.
Ah, now (I believe) I get your point: You want it to be possible _not_ to use a kernel package, but build the kernel manually (say, running `make zImage` or whatever - it is so long ago...)? I disagree! If you want to live on the wild side, then go ahead and compile your stuff yourself - including whatever happens to have something to do with that (like mol-modules). Else why not simply rely on ldd to check dependencies instead of all these annoying .debs - or go all the way and choose Slackware :-) I do agree that the least possible should rely on the kernel package. Then if you wanna play wild you can make a fake .deb and do whatever (what was the package for doing fake packages?). - Jonas -- Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dr.jones.dk/ +45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8
