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

Re: Bug#346281: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686: debconf question about /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-686 even if no kernel is installed

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:53:03 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:00:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:05:25 +0100, Sven Luther

>> > Whatever, i think the build directory should just work, and that
>> > was the agreement we had back then on this. I assumed this was
>> > indeed the case.  Any idea what exactly is going wrong here.

        The build directory "just works" in the common case, anyway.

>> Define "just work". And the agreement I recall was codified on
>> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelModulesPackaging

> Jonas and you wrote that one unilaterally despite my protests, i
> don't recognize that document. And since jonas seems to be kind-of
> MIA since a couple of weeks, this leaves only you.

> The agreement we had was that the build symlink would always point
> to a valid directory, which is provided by the linux-headers package
> for official kernels. I don't care what you do or not for
> non-official kernels, but on behalf of the kernel team i ask you to
> not unnecessary break things.

        Who's we, kemo sabe? I never agreed to any such thing. I guess
 the people making the decisions should be doing the work

> So, just always have the build symlink with the headers. The special
> case of having the build symlink point to the non-packaged sources,
> well, it could be handled with a diversion or whatever, or just be
> there. or in some other way.

        Why? Is there a technical reason that justifies this special
 casing, and makes official headers conflict with kernel images built
 by the end user?  What justifies losing this compatibility?

> You have a broken solution as far as the official kernels are
> concerned. I don't care what you do, and we provided code for you to
> ignore the build symlink when doing that nasty check everyone
> ignores anyway, but you wouldn't take it.

        What is broken if the official build system does not muck up
 the perfectly working packages the kernel-package produces?

> There is no build directory for official kernels, and the only valid
> point for the build symlink to point to is the dir provided by the
> header package, so there is no build directory, the kernel headers
> are installed, then per your own words, the build symlink should
> point to this, independently of if the kernel-image is installed or
> not. This is what we actually agreed upon, and if k-p did this,
> nobody would ever be complaining.

        WHO agreed upon this? Why was I not in that loop? And why must
 the build symlink  in official kernels headers conflict with every
 other kernel mage package produced? What is the significant

> Anyway, i don't think this will bring anything, and last time we
> discussed this, you ended up with abuse and insults against me, and
> when all thought you had solved the issue, and everyone was happy,
> you suddenly come again with this brokeness.

        The issue is solved. linux-2.6 breaks header packages, but
 that is not my doing.

Odets, where is thy sting? George S. Kaufman
Manoj Srivastava     <srivasta@acm.org>    <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: