On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:42:10PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:13:33PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:02:03PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > I don't think I'm very fond of the kernel-modules-extra package.
> > But if it is going to be around, it needs to process the dependencies
> > in a way that doesn't require both modules to be installed all the
> > time. :-)
>
> Honestly, we might want to just call depmod to work out _all_ the
> dependencies, then parse modules.dep and move everything once. Playing
> games either way is just going to play shell games moving a module
> around.
Honestly, I still think that has it backwards. If a module is
important enough to stay in kernel (e.g. a hardware device driver),
then dependency on a module that was slated for extras shouldn't pull
the more important module over there -- it should pull the "extra"
module back to kernel instead.
Oh, sure, yes. I wasn't saying you were incorrect there, I was more
commenting on the fact that our 'dependency information' as it is today
is suspect. Might as well try and fix that at the same time.
josh