On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:59:53PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mer 17/12/2003 à 15:51, Chris Ricker a écrit : > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > > So make the SMP one require the UP. > > > Frankly SMP alsa users are the minority, they'd better have an UP kernel > > > as fallback, so they can live with two alsa modules without polluting > > > normal user systems. > > > > Why? My SMP boxes don't have a UP kernel on them. > > Well, better : > - SMP users shall have SMP and UP code > than : > - everyone shall have SMP and UP code > > And anyway who is going to use 2.4 alsa on smp now ? The naming guidelines should serve more than alsa on 2.4 up machines ;) I had gone through various models and finaly arrived at the same solution as Fernando. It is the only maintainable way for supporting all the released kernels. There is a "bug/feature" of RH kernels not being distinguishable enough to set up strict dependencies. There is even a bugzilla entry, and it was shorty discussed on this list in August. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102639 https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2003-August/msg00215.html The kernel needs to have strict Provides hooks (I call the Provides strictdep-kernel). I paste them into my RH patched kernels I build and also offer a glueing package for RH kernels: http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/strict-dep-kernel/ Fernando is doing something similar. That's the only way to get properly matched kernels and kernel modules together, be it manually or via apt/yum/up2date/.... -- Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de
Attachment:
pgp00139.pgp
Description: PGP signature