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 _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
