overwriting files from modules packages
I am the (new) maintainer of bcm5700-source, a modules package for
the broadcom gigabit adapter. The final package,
bcm5700-module-${KVERS}, includes a manpage,
/usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700.4.gz. I just now ran into the problem
that while installing the 2.4.22 image and modules, the
bcm5700-modules-2.4.22 package attempted to install that manpage,
even though bcm5700-modules-2.4.21 already put it there.
This is a special situation, and I am not sure how to handle it.
I don't want to create the manpage in the postinst because then it
would not be under control of the package management system. I could
install a manpage including the version number and simply symlink,
but then it may be that i have symlinked to 2.4.21 even though
2.4.22 includes an updated version, which is the one that's relevant
if I booted 2.4.22.
What to do? I appreciate any advice.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
pgp93jwMlpSzr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 11:05:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am the (new) maintainer of bcm5700-source, a modules package for the
> broadcom gigabit adapter. The final package, bcm5700-module-${KVERS},
> includes a manpage, /usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700.4.gz. I just now ran into
> the problem that while installing the 2.4.22 image and modules, the
> bcm5700-modules-2.4.22 package attempted to install that manpage, even
> though bcm5700-modules-2.4.21 already put it there.
>
> This is a special situation, and I am not sure how to handle it. I don't
> want to create the manpage in the postinst because then it would not be
> under control of the package management system. I could install a manpage
> including the version number and simply symlink, but then it may be that i
> have symlinked to 2.4.21 even though 2.4.22 includes an updated version,
> which is the one that's relevant if I booted 2.4.22.
>
> What to do? I appreciate any advice.
Kernel module packages should be treated with the same care as shared
library packages, since different versions need to coexist. Anything which
could conflict needs to either be versioned in the filesystem, or moved into
a separate package.
If you want two different versions of documentation, they need to be named
differently. Alternatively, you can just split the documentation into a
separate package and allow only one version to be installed at once.
--
- mdz
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.31.0013 +0200]: > If you want two different versions of documentation, they need to > be named differently. Alternatively, you can just split the > documentation into a separate package and allow only one version > to be installed at once. I don't think a single manpage warrants another binary package. So the only real solution is to put the manpage into /usr/share/doc//docs ... -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgpbYIHLfTSCA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:18:26AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.31.0013 +0200]: > > If you want two different versions of documentation, they need to > > be named differently. Alternatively, you can just split the > > documentation into a separate package and allow only one version > > to be installed at once. > > I don't think a single manpage warrants another binary package. So > the only real solution is to put the manpage into > /usr/share/doc//docs ... Or name it -.. -- - mdz
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.31.0130 +0200]: > > I don't think a single manpage warrants another binary package. So > > the only real solution is to put the manpage into > > /usr/share/doc//docs ... > > Or name it -.. Which is what I will do, probably. It's just annoying... but a statement in README.Debian will do... -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgpuOrEbjBUo7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
> Which is what I will do, probably. It's just annoying... but > a statement in README.Debian will do... update-alternatives is usually used in managing multiple manpages. I don't know if it's a overkill, but it's somewhat friendlier than documenting in README.Debian. regards, junichi.
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:18:26AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.31.0013 +0200]: > > > If you want two different versions of documentation, they need to > > > be named differently. Alternatively, you can just split the > > > documentation into a separate package and allow only one version > > > to be installed at once. > > > > I don't think a single manpage warrants another binary package. So > > the only real solution is to put the manpage into > > /usr/share/doc//docs ... > > Or name it -.. And maybe use dpkg-divert / update-alternatives for the . version. Regards, Joey -- If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country. -- motd of irc.funet.fi Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
martin f krafft wrote:
> I am the (new) maintainer of bcm5700-source, a modules package for
> the broadcom gigabit adapter. The final package,
> bcm5700-module-${KVERS}, includes a manpage,
> /usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700.4.gz. I just now ran into the problem
> that while installing the 2.4.22 image and modules, the
> bcm5700-modules-2.4.22 package attempted to install that manpage,
> even though bcm5700-modules-2.4.21 already put it there.
Hmm... Do you expect your module to be compiled without
--append-to-version being applied to make-kpkg?
Abbreviated example:
make-pkg --append-to-version -2-686-smp kernel_modules
Produces:
/usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700-2-4-21-2-686-smp.4.gz
So this conflict seems to be only possible if the kernel is
constructed raw with no version over and above the upstream kernel
version. That does not seem very common nor useful. I would be happy
to continue into the discussion of why kernels need to be named
uniquely which is different from most packages.
I use the broadcom module and I have never run into this case since I
am not sure it is useful (for me anyway) to build a kernel without
some type of identifier for the type of kernel and the version of the
configuration of that kernel.
I have to ask if this is really enough of a problem to justify any
handling at all, special or otherwise?
Bob
pgpdu9yeFHFLr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.01.0853 +0200]: > Abbreviated example: > > make-pkg --append-to-version -2-686-smp kernel_modules > > Produces: > > /usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700-2-4-21-2-686-smp.4.gz Not by default. I could make that happen manually though, which is what I will do, in addition to /etc/alternatives. > So this conflict seems to be only possible if the kernel is > constructed raw with no version over and above the upstream kernel > version. That does not seem very common nor useful. I would be > happy to continue into the discussion of why kernels need to be > named uniquely which is different from most packages. No need, I am with you. > I use the broadcom module and I have never run into this case > since I am not sure it is useful (for me anyway) to build a kernel > without some type of identifier for the type of kernel and the > version of the configuration of that kernel. I do too, but I get the problem. As I said, the manpage is called bcm5700.4.gz. It does not include the version info yet. > I have to ask if this is really enough of a problem to justify any > handling at all, special or otherwise? I cannot upgrade my kernels to a newer version without --force-overwrite. So yes. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgpvba1REVeYL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: overwriting files from modules packages
martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.01.0853 +0200]: > > Abbreviated example: > > make-pkg --append-to-version -2-686-smp kernel_modules > > Produces: > > /usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700-2-4-21-2-686-smp.4.gz > > Not by default. I could make that happen manually though, which is > what I will do, in addition to /etc/alternatives. I am not sure exactly what you mean here by "not by default". You don't usually include --append-to-version by default? Or even if you do use that option you still do not get a versioned man page by default? Or you usually build the kernel and modules differently such that you don't get a versioned man page by default? Sorry, but I am just not clear here. Looking at the man page more closely I personally would probably be looking for that information in /usr/share/doc/ and not in a man page. Let me place a preference vote that the information be moved there instead. That seems the cleaner solution. Bob pgptGTdQC2bK1.pgp Description: PGP signature
