On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:38 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:33:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > Its not -required- that any of the software on a machine be packaged. > > Users can (gasp) build and run their own $software - e.g. squid, apache, > > whatever. > > > > But - we cannot expect the packaging system to ensure that requirements > > are met for *any* unpackaged software. > > > > I think its a fair and proper assumption that the stack of software is > > all packaged: its very easy to build a packaged, vanilla kernel - and > > doing so can generate appropriate information for dpkg. > > > Yes. But enough people build non-packaged kernels that it is not really > fair to exclude them. Add to that the fact that the presence of a > particular kernel image package in no way guarantees that it is that > particular kernel that is running, and you it is plain that it is not > necessary to depend on a particular kernel. This is true, and irrelevant: the presence of a packaged library version does not in any way guarantee that the files from that will be the ones picked up by the runtime loader, and so on and so forth for executables, dynamic language modules, images etc. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part