Re: toward better module package building
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:32:40AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Let me show you what I've got here. It's just a first step, mind..
> joey@satin:~>apt-src list
> i pcmcia-cs 3.1.33-7 /home/joey/lib/kernel/modules/pcmcia-cs
> i kernel-source 2.4.18 /home/joey/lib/kernel/linux
> i poldhu 0.2.12-2 /home/joey/lib/kernel/modules/poldhu-0.2.12
One thing we *really* need to start doing with modules is making
sure prebuilt modules list their "Source:" as the appropriate
kernel-source-*.dsc. Having it be the actual source of the module is
an absolute nightmare to maintain, and is the reason we tend to have so
many garbagey old kernel+module packages lying about.
Basically the structure within the archive should be something like:
kernel-image-2.4.20.deb # or the various variants as app.
kernel-source-2.4.20.deb # if such a thing is still necessary
Whether pcmcia-modules-2.4.20 and foo-modules-2.4.20 actually get
uploaded at the same time as kernel-source-2.4.20.dsc is marginally
irrelevent, aiui, the only thing that *really* matters is the Source:
field in the .debs and the .changes file. It's probably only feasible
to autobuild *-modules.deb if they're uploaded at the same time as the
kernel-source.dsc they match.
Getting the Source: field set right requires either a fair degree of
hackery, or building pcmcia-modules-2.4.20.deb from within the unpacked
kernel-source-2.4.20 source tree.
I'm not sure what impact apt-src has on this, or vice-versa.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org