[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NPTL support in 2.4 kernel series?

On 2005-01-22 Martin Kittel <debian@martin-kittel.de> wrote:
> I am still favouring the solution using "Depends" and scripts to
> detect whether you are running the right kernel.

> First, I think "Depends" is what should be done because that's what
> package management systems are about in the first place: declaring
> what you need to have to be able to run something. If you decide to
> install stuff outside your package management system, it is your
> problem if it later complains about missing dependencies. That's the
> price you have to pay. And I don't think anybody who is running a
> self-compiled version of libc is expecting package maintainers to
> downgrade their dependency to "Recommends" or remove it completely.

That is a bogus comparison.

For the whole time I have been using Debian it has been accepted and
supported practice to _not_ use kernel-package but "make install" for
the kernel. Installing kernel's as .deb has always been optional.

On a freshly installed Debian system you can happily uninstall any
kernel-image package because there are no[1] dependencies on it,
*because* installing kernels with make install is supported practice.

OTOH anybody installing glibc with make-install will get "You shot
yourself" on _any_ report of a problem.

> And finally, to come back to my initial question: Is there a way of
> declaring a dependency on NPTL other than depending on
> kernel-image-2.6?

Package dependencies are simply not suited for depending on kernel
features, because
a) "make install" in sanctioned for kernels
b) The fact that a kernel-image is installed does not tell you
anything about whether the kernel-feature is actually available as
this kernel-image might be installed but not running.

A debconf warning displayed conditionally in preinst and config
(debconf will only show it once but depending on whether
dpkg-preconfigure is used one or the other script will run earlier)
still seems to be the best way.
            cu andreas

[1] Except for acouple of kernel-modules packages, which depend on a
specific kernel compiled with specific options selected.
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"

Reply to: