Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Could you please explain this part of the diff?
>
> --- kqemu-1.3.0~pre9/debian/control.modules.in
> +++ kqemu-1.3.0~pre9/debian/control.modules.in
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>
> Package: kqemu-modules-_KVERS_
> Architecture: any
> -Depends: linux-image-_KVERS_
> +Depends: linux-modules-_KVERS_, kqemu-common
> Recommends: qemu (>= 0.8.1)
> Provides: kqemu-modules
> Description: kqemu modules for Linux (kernel _KVERS_).
this is like all the newer modules are declaring their depends to the
kernel. it has no effect as linux-image is pulled in anyway by this.
> +
> + mkdir debian/kqemu-common/dev
> + mknod debian/kqemu-common/dev/kqemu c 250 0
> + chmod 0666 debian/kqemu-common/dev/kqemu
> +
>
> this is a policy violation. You're not allowed to ship device nodes in a
> package.
then, i was misinterpreting the advice i was given before, fixed in -9,
thanks.
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>
- Re: Please unblock kqemu, second try
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>