[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#249978: kernel-package: Could we have kernel-image packages check for anything but build on install?



reassign 249978 kernel
clone 226779 -1
reassign -1 kernel
merge -1 249978 
thanks

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:22:25 -0400, Len Sorensen <lennartsorensen@ruggedcom.com> said: 

> Perhaps if instead of checking if /lib/modules/version exists, check
> if /lib/modules/version exists and contains anything other than the
> build symlink.  Having a warning message just because kernel-headers
> is aphabetically before kernel-image and creates the dir first with
> one symlink in it, is really confusing many newer users.

	That won't help, since then dpkg would fail when it finds that
 two packages own /lib/modules/$version/build.  The problem lies in
 kernel-headers including this link all of a sudden -- it should not,
 since it is owned by kernel-image packages.

	There is more discussion in 226779, where Herbert provides the
 rationale for kernel-header packages suddenly deciding to also
 include this symlink, despite that file already being present in
 kernel-image packages. Policy says that if kernel-header packages do
 so, they must conflict with kernel-image packages -- which is clearly
 not desirable.

	One solution, which I proposed, was that kernel-image
 packages could, on installation, relink a dangling
 /lib/modules/$version/build symlink to an existing kernel-headers
 directory, if we could have some kind of consensus on what would be a
 valid name.

	This has a couple of drawbacks -- you still need a
 kernel-image package to have the build symlink, and Herbert wanted
 the headers package to be standalone.

	One solution would be to never ship a build link, but to ship
 build.image, build.headers links; and have the postinst cp -P the
 symlink if none existed, and the source symlink is not dangling.

	This would need changing the kernel packages rules file; to
 rename the symlink for the image; to ship the renamed symlink for the
 headers, and to change the postinsts to manipulate the symbolic link
 and cp/mv them if  desired.  I wonder if this is too close to release
 to make this kind of a change; but the current practice of shipping
 the conflicting build file in the headers packages _without_
 conflicting with the image packages must stop.

	manoj
-- 
You shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your
flesh. Pat Benatar, "Hell is for Children"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: