Re: Adding linux-image-<version> dependency on linux-headers-<version>?
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 10:25:54PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Now, those wanting to compile third party drivers like the nvidia ones, should
> > take the nvidia package (or whatever it is called) and build it following to
> > instructions, or even better, the new policy should call for pre-compilation
> > for all official flavours of those modules, like it is already done on powerpc
> > for the MOL packages for example.
> >
> > In any case, if it fails because of missing headers, there is a bug in the
> > third-party-module package.
>
> Thanks for the well-thought-out reply. I was curious as to whether
Hehe, ...
> this problem had been pondered yet. Perhaps I will bring it up with
> nvidia that their driver installer should not be depending on the
> linux headers in debian.
please wait until we provide a comprehensive explanation document about the
new method. And in any case, the module-source package should add an explicit
dependency on the linux-headers file.
> > The sarge situation was a complete mess, and i strongly suggest to move to a
> > 2.6.12 backport. The situation there should be rather clear, and to build
> > third party modules, you only need to set KSRC=/lib/modules/<version>/build,
> > works fine.
>
> I disagree with the above statement. I am using currently using the
> 2.6.12 kernel (on etch), and there is no
> /lib/modules/2.6.12-1-686/build directory with a default linux-image
Sure, it is provided by the linux-headers packages.
> install. However, this directory is created when I install the
> linux-headers-2.6.12-1-686 package, which is why we always need to
> tell people to install the headers. Can you clarify what you meant
> above? Thanks.
Ah, indeed, you need the headers to build third party modules, it was more or
less broken in sarge for the majority of arches though. Please wait for the
comprehensive explanation document which will probably accompany 2.6.14.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: