On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 17:42, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > 1) IMO shouldn't use "kernel" for stuff that is not included in kernel > > distributed by the kernel vendor. > > I don't think it's a problem. I think installing the module exactly at > the same place where it normally would have been installed when you > compile it also has a lot of benefits. Could you elaborate on "lot of benefits", it is not at all clear to me. Axel already commented why intruding this "vendor space" can cause problems. > > 2) My #1 pick as of now, maybe, depending on 3) below. > > But do we really need to mirror the stucture? Is there any benefit in > doing so? Why not a simple per-package dir? Why not be consistent with what the kernel does? What benefits does a per-package dir approach have? If you are thinking about directory ownership in module packages, everything below _and including_ the "updates" or "extra" dirs should be owned by the module package(s) anyway because the kernel package does not create nor own them.
