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 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:52:18 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:00:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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.
> BTW, what about the image and headers both providing the build
> symlink, except for official images which will not, and using the
> alternatives mechanism, with the header symlink having the bigger
> priority ? This way everyone is happy, it just work, and the user
> can even override things.
Err, this is additional complexity, and for what benefit? I
still have seen nothing that explains what we gain from the headers
containing the link. What is the use case? How is the link used?
> We still need to provide stong conflict between official packages
> and compiled from random source reusing the same name.
And I think this is a bug. We should be minimizing needless
conflicts between packages, not adding them -- especially if there is
no tangible benefit.
manoj
--
"I have been poor and I have been rich. Rich is better." Sophie
Tucker
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: