Re: dependency question
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:52:11PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> OTOH, by not making it a "Depends:", I could end
> up with a situation where installing oprofile or
> prospect would work, but the tools themselves would
> not because the kernel module is missing.
>
> The upstream author for prospect really would like
> to see a "Depends:". I'm inclined to leave it the
> way it is. I figure I've got two options:
>
> (1) Leave things alone; this implies that I'll
> have to rely on the user to be smart enough
> to know what to do when the tools fail because
> they cannot load a kernel module that is not
> present.
>
> (2) Enforce the dependencies via "Depends:",
> requiring the kernel module and at least one
> kernel-image to be installed.
>
> Debian Policy doesn't seem to address this sort of
> issue (unless I missed it somewhere -- always possible).
> Other DD's I've talked to prefer the looser restrictions
> that seem to allow for a broader range of use cases.
take a look at "lirc" as example and I think it do somthing similar
to what you asked for.
HTH
--
/*---------^-^-------------------------*----------------------------------*
* ° ° * *
* Ayman Negm * Debian GNU/Linux Project *
* ICQ: 85532366 * http://www.debian.org *
* Private: a.negm!hamburg.de * Linux/Unix arabization Project *
* Debian: negm!debian.org * http:://www.arabeyes.org *
*-------------------------------------*----------------------------------*/
Reply to: