Re: [PROPOSAL] update-binfmts - manages the binfmt_misc kernel module

[cjw44@cam.ac.uk (Colin Watson)]

Peter Makholm <peter@makholm.net> wrote:
>Kristoffer.Rose@ens-lyon.fr writes:
>>    But then again this may be overloading the package system since there
>>    are quite a few kernel modules...
>
>But it would be nice with some standard way to specify a "depend" on a
>kernel-option and a "provide" of options for kernel patches. I don't
>know any way to check for it but just a field saying "You need this"
>would be good.

How about having the kernel image packages that make-kpkg produces
provide a virtual package for each of their modules, or for each class
of modules? I can see the list becoming quite large in pathological
cases, though, and I suppose it would be difficult to maintain as the
kernel develops. (Not to mention that the many people who don't use
make-kpkg would have to be supported in some way ...)

But I can certainly imagine that many packages would want to have this
sort of module dependency: for instance, I saw mention of lm-sensors
recently, and it might want to depend on something like
kernel-module-i2c.

-- 
Colin Watson                                           [cjw44@cam.ac.uk]