Re: Dependencies on kernel-image-x.y [was: NPTL support in kernel 2.4 series]
Martin Kittel wrote:
[snip]
> B) most people compile their own kernels and don't bother registering
> those with dpkg, e.g. via kernel-package, and therefore their systems,
> -while actually running a suitable kernel- do not provide the required
> virtual package.
>
> With A) I absolutely agree, but I think B) is not a valid objection to
> having a dependency on kernel-image-x.y, especially since it is very
> easy to create a custom kernel package with kernel-package. Also the
> reasoning of B) could be applied to any package, starting with
> java2-runtime and then going all the way to libc.
The kernel is handled specially for a reason. You can e.g. test a
new glibc in a chroot, but this won't work for the kernel.
> But even with A) being a valid objection, I still consider it to be
> cleaner to state a dependency on kernel-image-x.y because
>
> 1) it explicitely and visibly states the dependency that is inherent in
> the package
>
> 2) the information the dependency provides is visible _before_ the
> package is even downloaded
>
> 3) on systems that only have kernel images of kernel version x.y
> installed and where those kernel images are properly registered (and I
> would argue that this is the majority of systems out there), having the
> dependency just works.
This means e.g. a kernel developer would have to install some otherwise
completely useless debian kernel in order to check if his MaxDB testcase
is still ok for the actually running version.
Thiemo
Reply to: