>No s**t. I think dealing with that should be possible from apt's >lua-scripts just like the current "magic" is but I haven't given it >much thought since the current scheme "just works" with the >uname-in-package-name scheme which.. I don't like either but at least it >works. > >For your (and others') <cough> amusement, there's a long and lively >discussion about kernel-module dependencies, naming schemes etc at >http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-March/thread.html >Something inside my head keeps saying there's a nice solution to this all >but we're just too blind to see it. Most likely I've just been too much >into mushrooms lately however... :P One thing we could do. But I'm hesitant to do it. We could ask if, as an option for adding a package into the ts as an update it takes an optional header of the package it is updating. I'm not sure how ugly this would be for rpm but it would allow for the flexibility we'd need/want here. is Paul on this list? any ideas? -sv
