On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > I don't understand. You seem to be saying that the headers you need are > > not in the package, but also are in the package. > > > > "the source package needs some X headers not included in xlibs-dev" > > and > > "I'd set build dependency on xlibs-dev and compile against its headers" > > sorry for my english... > I mean that some headers needed to compile the synaptics driver are not > included in xlibs-dev, while other headers (also needed to compile) are. > In my previous mail I included a treeview of the headers needed to > compile. As you can see there are some files packaged in xlibs-dev > (I snipped the full list) and some not. > I'd include in the deb source only the missing headers (as provided by > mainstream), but still compile against what's available in xlibs-dev. I see. > > Also, what do you mean by "mainstream package"? > > the original tar.gz, sorry again Okay. We usually call that "upstream", not "mainstream". > > > Another option could be to create another xfree86-driver-dev to let > > > external drivers compile. Which solution? > > > > I think the headers in question will probably end up in the > > xfree86-driver-ddk package, which is slated for development after > > 4.3.0-1 is released. > > In the meantime is my approach ok? Yes. I don't think it's ever a problem to include private copies of header files you might need when they're not provided by a package. For Linux kernel headers this is actively encouraged, to the point of dragging people into it kicking and screaming. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been branden@debian.org | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature