> > apt-get devfs Oops, my mistake. Please read apt-get devfs as apt-get devfsd also all referentces to package devfs should read devfsd. I guess this made my original post a bit unclear. Sorry. ... > > I was thinking that in an ideal world the configuration of > > a package would fail if at least one of it's prerequisites > > (like certain kernel functionality) is not met. This would > > (1) tell the user what is wrong and (2) leave the package > > in "Failed-config" state so all packages that depend on this > > one would not be installed until the issue is resolved. > > > I havn't used the debian kernel packaging system yet, I still rely on > kernel.org for my stuff. I'm not sure if any of Debian's > binary kernels > even support devfs. It is still experimental, which goes > against Debian > principle that it should work. Period. All the time for everyone. Well, "devfsd 1.3.25-1" is a stable package. As such it should behave as a stable package, regardless of the "experimental" nature of the packaged software. The fact is that devfsd DOES NOT WORK without properly recompiled kernel. Not only that, it does not give any clue what exactly is wrong. .... > Because devfs is still experimental, I understand that it is my > responsibility to understand it if I want to use it. I didn't > know about > it until I was reading through my kernel config. Not necesarilly. Sometimes people need other software that just happens to need devfs. In my case I needed to compile something with GCC 3.2. I did not want to break my stable system by installing GCC 3.x so I decided to use user-mode-linux (another stable package), which in turn requires devfsd. Becoming more familiar with devfs is a good thing (tm) indeed, but I would rather gave it a miss if only I could. > > 1. Should I report this as a bug? It is a bug in a sense > > that a required functionality does not work "out-of-the-box". > > However, strictly speaking, there is no bug in devfs package - > > it is up to the poor user to figure out what is wrong with > > the rest of the system. > > Then the 'poor user' shouldn't be running experimental software. I > actually wish that dependencies wern't so damn strong. ... I thing the decision what the 'poor user' should be doing is to be left to the 'poor user' himself rather than restricting his freedom. Regarding dependencies - IMHO this is what makes Debian so stable. Relax them and you will get a less stable system. I am still to receive answers to my questions in the original post. Regards Vesselin
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature