Re: Bug#147077: What is with the kernel maintainer? (How not to close Bug#147077)
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > You shouldn't include PCMCIA modules in your kernel-image if you
> > > intend to install it with pcmcia-modules. -
Brian Mays wrote:
> > Not good enough! Please explain WHY these symlinks should not be
> > removed and WHAT purpose they serve. If you can give me ONE valid
> > reason for their existence, then I'll withdraw my request. As it
> > is, they are simply a pain in the ass.
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> answered:
> OK, how about those who are using home made pcmcia-cs tools that still
> rely on the symlink?
I said a VALID reason. Pcmcia-cs tools that old use insmod and thus are
broken anyway for the pcmcia drivers in the current 2.4 series kernels.
I'm sure you'll agree with me here; you complain about pcmcia-cs using
insmod all the time.
> > Why the hell does getting you to do anything have to be like pulling
> > teeth?! You completely failed to address any of my other comments.
>
> Perhaps it's because what you're asking for isn't as logical as you
> think it is?
If that is they way you feel, then please explain why you think it is
illogical. I gave several reasons why I thought that it was a logical
request. You should at least mention those reasons in your reply.
> > example, your assertion above strongly implies that the kernel-image
> > package in question should conflict with the pcmcia-modules package,
> > and indeed, this is what I suggested in my bug report:
>
> As I said before, if you're going to include pcmcia modules in the
> kernel-image package itself you certainly need the conflict. ...
When did you say this? Looking at your statement above, I can't see
where you mentioned conflicts.
> ... However, the precompiled images do not include the PCMCIA
> modules inside the main package so it does not need to conflict with
> pcmcia-modules.
Running "make-kpkg kernel_image" in a kernel source that has been
configured with "CONFIG_PCMCIA=y" does indeed include the PCMCIA modules
inside the generated kernel-image package, and this package does not
conflict with the pcmcia-modules package. That was the whole point of
my test.
To fix this problem, either the symlinks causing the file conflict
with the pcmcia-modules package should be removed, or the generated
kernel-image package should conflict with the pcmcia-modules package.
The latter fix would probably require modifications to make-kpkg, but
you would need to coordinate with Manoj to get this right. Therefore,
the problem was reported to you.
Of course, the whole time, I have been arguing for the simpler course of
action: remove the symlinks.
> If you're building your own kernel-image package then it is YOUR
> responsibility to ensure that you don't include modules twice.
> Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you're compiling both the
> kernel PCMCIA modules as well as the ones from pcmcia-cs.
I will be most happy to do so. I am troubleshooting. I was simply
doing something that I have seen many users do themselves. These users
then file bug reports to me, complaining about the file conflicts. I've
had to clear up this confusion several times already, but when users
keep filing the same bug over and over again, somebody is not doing his
job.
I am trying to fix this problem; however, since it involves both of our
packages, I need to coordinate with you to arrive at a decent solution.
I offered two possible courses of action. You buried your head in the
sand.
- Brian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: