dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I understand this correctly, that would mean that etch users would > be forced to move to the new module code, right?. I don't doubt that > it would work just fine, but objective #1 is to minimize risk to > existing etch users.
Yes, that's true. >> Alternately, we could provide an openafs-modules-source-etchnhalf >> package that conflicts and replaces openafs-modules-source, although >> that seems a little weird to me. > Why would it need to conflict replace? Could they install into > separate locations? All that's in the package is a tarball in /usr/src (it's the standard module build pattern). If it were called something other than openafs.tar.gz or expanded into a different directory, wouldn't that confuse tools like module-assistant? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
