Re: build depends on kernel-headers
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU> writes:
Manoj> We already have a process for packages that actually do
Manoj> need kernel headers, and are thus dependent on particular
Manoj> kernel versions.
Sam> We do? please explain what it is.
Manoj> We call these packages kernel modules; and we have a
Manoj> process by which you inform make where the relevant kernel
Manoj> headers are to be found. make-kpkg automates that somewhat
Manoj> (and make-kpkg can be used for packages that are not
Manoj> kernel-modules, you know).
Sam> How do I use make-kpkg to build modules with a kernel headers
As you can see above, I never said kernel headers *package*. I
reiterate, we have a process for modules that need kernel-headers,
and that is provided by a process similar to the one employed by
kernel-package (using kernel sources). It is trivial to create a
script that will work with kernel-headers as well.
kernel-package was designed to work with kernels and kernel
modules, and for these one generally needed to configure the kernel
locally (most modules have to be turned on during configuration).
I am not saying we do not need to facilitate third party
software that requires kernel headers to build. I am coming out in
strong objection to the symlink shennanigans we have gotten away from
in the past, for precisely the reasons we got away from them in the
For a developer packaging a package, it is a trivial effort to
allow for a location to be provided either on the command line, or a
envritonment variable, (perhaps looking at a few ``standard''
locations first. We can even have the config process ask the
developer, as vmware does when compiling its modules.
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C