On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 02:39:53PM +0100, Martin Sj?gren wrote: > m?n 2003-03-24 klockan 10.48 skrev Herbert Xu: > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 10:45:20PM +0100, Martin Sj?gren wrote: > > > > > > It's harder to parse. I don't want anna to screw up because someone > > > named their udeb a bit weird. The pattern for kernel module udebs so far > > > seem to be on the form *-modules-*.*.*-*-udeb which is a bit too unclear > > > for my taste :/ > > > > This seems pretty simple to me. Find "-modules-" in the string, > > and then keep going until you see "-udeb" at the end. > > The parsing was the least concern. Bad explanations on my part, I'm > worried about false negatives and false positives. Most udebs end in > "-udeb" so that's far from conclusive. And I can imagine udebs with > "-modules-" in the name, even if we have none now. I guess we should > cross-run the info in the name with the version of the udeb to be on the > safe side. > > I have, however implemented the first step (parsing the package name) > and the CVS version seems to work fine.
Why not check if the module package depends on the kernel-image package corresponding to the kernel in use? Matt -- It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]