Re: Bad practice to make a package depend on a specific kernel image
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:05:01PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> The point of packaging is to let things work as well as possible by
> default. Its not true to say that kernels and libraries are identical in
> their constraints : and I haven't claimed that. What I have claimed is
> that in no case is there any guarantee that what dpkg *thinks* is
> present actually is.
> But where we can signal to it that something is *not* present, that is
> useful, as dpkg can then signal to the user that intervention is
The thing that kills this idea whenever it's brought up is usually the
fact that even if the user is using the prepackaged versions of
everything having a kernel package installed provides only a fairly weak
guarantee that the kernel in the package will be used. Users need to
reboot to run a newly installed kernel, multiple kernels can be
installed simultaneously and users can flip between them as they choose.
This reduces the utility for the inexpert users that would benefit most.
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."