Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
- To: Jurij Smakov <jurij@wooyd.org>
- Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
- From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 08:09:46 +0200
- Message-id: <20060406060946.GA25039@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0604052107390.3421@bobcat>
- 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> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0604052107390.3421@bobcat>
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:08PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> 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
By Manoj :), as well as dh_make -k too.
> 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.
Ok.
I think it is important that dh_make -k produce a skeleton of working module
package, in order to make new p&ackaging of modules easy.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: