Re: Bad practice to make a package depend on a specific kernel image
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:05:01PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> The point of packaging is to let things work as well as possible by
> default. Its not true to say that kernels and libraries are identical in
> their constraints : and I haven't claimed that. What I have claimed is
> that in no case is there any guarantee that what dpkg *thinks* is
> present actually is.
> But where we can signal to it that something is *not* present, that is
> useful, as dpkg can then signal to the user that intervention is
> required.
The thing that kills this idea whenever it's brought up is usually the
fact that even if the user is using the prepackaged versions of
everything having a kernel package installed provides only a fairly weak
guarantee that the kernel in the package will be used. Users need to
reboot to run a newly installed kernel, multiple kernels can be
installed simultaneously and users can flip between them as they choose.
This reduces the utility for the inexpert users that would benefit most.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Reply to: