Re: pcmcia-modules in woody
Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Brian Mays wrote:
>
>> > BTW: It's _extremely_ ugly to build these binary pacakges in a
>> > way that a
>> > "dpkg-buildpackage -B" doesn't rebuild them all.
>>...
>> The only way to automate this further is to *force* the
>> kernel-image packages to build the corresponding pcmcia-modules
>> packages, since they contain everything needed to do so. All that
>> is required is an additional build-dependency on the pcmcia-source
>> package, which can be unpacked (in a similar way that many of these
>> packages unpack the kernel source from a binary kernel-source
>> package) and the appropriate instructions given to make this source
>> build the pcmcia-modules package, probably using "make-kpkg". In
>> fact, I think that a couple of the kernel-image package have
>> already been set up to do this.
>>...
>
> This is IMHO a good solution.
Does it scale well to having n different external kernel module
packages, all of which will want binary packages? How do we get
modules besides pcmcia built with the kernel? It also sounds like
this will lead to pain for people who want a slightly modified version
of the stock Debian kernel: downloading and installing kernel-source
and all of its dependencies takes a lot longer with this model, and
actually building it gets you lots of added kernel module packages
that you don't necessarily want.
--
David Maze dmaze@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
Reply to: