Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
- To: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Cc: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
- From: Jurij Smakov <jurij@wooyd.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0604052107390.3421@bobcat>
- Reply-to: jurij@wooyd.org
- In-reply-to: <20060405152036.GA3751@localhost.localdomain>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603222008391.3695@bobcat> <20060323051316.GA2508@kitenet.net> <20060323174223.GB32186@dp.vpn.nusquama.org> <20060324061645.GA29531@kitenet.net> <20060324142900.GB6461@dp.vpn.nusquama.org> <20060325233323.GA11021@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0603281958160.3547@bobcat> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0604032224190.3933@bobcat> <20060405152036.GA3751@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
So, directly using make-kpkg as was the recomended way until now is no more
supported ?
Recommended by whom? :-) I did not explore the issue in detail, but we
have a *lot* of modules packaged with module-assistant in the archive
already. If that way was compatible with make-kpkg before, then it will
remain that way.
Best regards,
Jurij Smakov jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Reply to: