Hi, > you are jumping quite late into this thread, so you may be missing the > more detailed discussions on the different propositions made. There is > no mystery or blanket statement. Actually, I jumped quite soon into this thread. I have posted more than a few emails before on this list about my proposal for a general solution that works for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, with various examples and requests for comments. > I'd like one solution as proposed on anothe post in the thread, that > would place the bits required to develop kernel modules in unique > folder names, say under /usr/src/. /usr/src is the wrong place, but I assume you agree with that already. > Unique in the sense that the > required bits for different archs should not overlap like they do now > for i686 vs i586 vs x86_64 etc. Yes, and everyone interested in packaging has already brought this up countless times, and Arjan has said countless times that he doesn't agree and it's not upstream kernel policy. We all know those arguments, and to everyone it seems quite clear that the only way we as packagers will be able to change this is to convince upstream kernel people. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> There's nothing I want to see There's nowhere I want to go <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
