On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 01:29:39AM +0000, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Mark Brown writes:
> > I'd question having the dependancy in the first place, though - > > nothing else with similar needs (lm-sensors for example) does that > > and it is unhelpful if one doesn't wish to use kernel-package. > You have a point there that I first overlooked. Still, I would like > to keep a dependency expressing that mol needs its kernel modules to > function. This does come at a price (namely, installing three > unnecessary kernel modules) for users who decide to bypass the package There's been some discussion on the topic on -devel in the past. Not only might the modules be unneeded, they might collide with the user installed one. > system. But I think it is preferrable to leaving out vital components > of a piece of software by default. I can quite happily have the modules installed and either not load them or run a completely different kernel (perhaps a packaged one) for which they are not applicable. Having the dependancy doesn't provide a full solution for the problem. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
