Robert Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Package name : kernel-patch-sensors > Version : 2.6.5 > Upstream Author : The Lm_sensors Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://www2.lm-sensors.nu/~lm78/ > * License : GPL > Description : Lm-sensors is a hardware health monitoring package for > Linux (kernel patch) > > I've created the patches on my own for 2.4.19 and 2.4.20 from the > lm-sensors-source package. > This patch allow you patch you kernel with lm_sensors.
Hmm. I (as the lm-sensors maintainer) am a little ambiguous about this. It seems wrong to have two separate source packages for lm-sensors when they both do the same thing. But I'm also unclear whether the effort of maintaining a kernel-patch version of lm-sensors in addition to the modules source is useful effort, since this sounds like something that's hard to debug via the BTS. How involved are the patches? (How does the kernel-package patch_the_kernel option work?) Can you submit a wishlist bug against lm-sensors-source, at least? > This package Depends on kernel-patch-i2c. How much "depends"? Right now the standalone kernel modules for lm-sensors 2.6.5 depend on i2c 2.6.1 or newer, so the version of i2c in kernels 2.4.13 or newer works fine too. There's magic in the lm-sensors-source package to figure this out. Repeat everything I said before about kernel patches, replacing lm-sensors with i2c (including filing a wishlist bug against i2c-source). -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell
