* Only report bugs about supported kernel versions. This fixes a regression
diff -Nru dkms-2.2.0.3/debian/control dkms-2.2.0.3/debian/control
--- dkms-2.2.0.3/debian/control 2012-02-27 02:42:41.000000000 -0700
+++ dkms-2.2.0.3/debian/control 2012-03-22 12:54:30.000000000 -0600
@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@
patch
Recommends: fakeroot,
menu | sudo,
- linux-headers-686-pae | linux-headers-amd64 | linux-headers-generic | linux-headers,
- linux-image
+ linux-headers-686-pae | linux-headers-amd64 | linux-headers-generic | linux-headers | linux-headers-omap4,
+ linux-image | linux-image-omap4
Description: Dynamic Kernel Module Support Framework
DKMS is a framework designed to allow individual kernel modules to be upgraded
without changing the whole kernel. It is also very easy to rebuild modules as
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
03-22-2012, 06:16 PM
Ricardo Salveti
debian.ti-omap4/control* housekeeping
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tim Gardner <rtg.canonical@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 06:11 AM, Paolo Pisati wrote:
>>
>> A fix and a cleanup for debian.ti-omap4/control.stub&c:
>>
>> 1) make linux-ti-omap4-headers provide linux-headers (thus fixing packages
>> depending on it like dkms)
>>
>> 2) garbage collect unused entries
>>
>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960770
>>
>> Paolo Pisati (2):
>> * UBUNTU: linux-ti-omap4-headers provides linux-headers too
>> * UBUNTU: gargabe collect unused entries in control.stub.in
>>
>> *debian.ti-omap4/control.d/flavour-control.stub | * *4 +-
>> *debian.ti-omap4/control.stub.in * * * * * * * *| * 61
>> +-----------------------
>> *2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Ricardo - I think the correct fix for this is to add omap4 specific
> recommends to dkms. Can you add this patch to dkms and give it a try ?
We could, but then the question is why this package should not provide
linux-headers?
I know it's not coming from the official tree, but as this will happen
with all the flavours we currently have (armada, ac100, linaro, etc).
It might be good to fix it for all by just expecting the
flavour-linux-headers to also provide linux-headers itself.
What do you say?
Thanks,
--
Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
03-22-2012, 07:13 PM
Tim Gardner
debian.ti-omap4/control* housekeeping
On 03/22/2012 01:16 PM, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tim Gardner <rtg.canonical@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/22/2012 06:11 AM, Paolo Pisati wrote:
>>>
>>> A fix and a cleanup for debian.ti-omap4/control.stub&c:
>>>
>>> 1) make linux-ti-omap4-headers provide linux-headers (thus fixing packages
>>> depending on it like dkms)
>>>
>>> 2) garbage collect unused entries
>>>
>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960770
>>>
>>> Paolo Pisati (2):
>>> UBUNTU: linux-ti-omap4-headers provides linux-headers too
>>> UBUNTU: gargabe collect unused entries in control.stub.in
>>>
>>> debian.ti-omap4/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 4 +-
>>> debian.ti-omap4/control.stub.in | 61
>>> +-----------------------
>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Ricardo - I think the correct fix for this is to add omap4 specific
>> recommends to dkms. Can you add this patch to dkms and give it a try ?
>
> We could, but then the question is why this package should not provide
> linux-headers?
>
> I know it's not coming from the official tree, but as this will happen
> with all the flavours we currently have (armada, ac100, linaro, etc).
> It might be good to fix it for all by just expecting the
> flavour-linux-headers to also provide linux-headers itself.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Thanks,
I don't think its the right solution. According to the Debian Policy
manual Provides: is meant to maintain the dependency graph when a newer
(and renamed) package provides the same support.
In this case, your powervr dkms package has a hard dependency on
linux-headers-omap4, and there is no other package that provides that
support.
I think the real issue are the Recommends: in the dkms package itself.
Given that it is now being used with a variety of kernels, the
recommendations are kind of bogus. Adding a new linux-image* and
linux-headers* recommendation for every new flavour of kernel doesn't
really scale. If dkms dropped all of its recommendations then I don't
think you'd be having the issue where apt-get wants to install
superfluous packages.
rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
debian.ti-omap4/control* housekeeping
