On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
> >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
> >>
> >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
> >current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image? Why have
> >two packages?
>
> I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is
> fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the
> kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a
> big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd
> anyway!
No, the kernel-2.2.0 package should not depend on the new pppd package,
since it is perfectly usable without pppd for people who don't use pppd.
Instead, the kernel-2.2.0 package should conflict with the old pppd
package.
(The real issue is not that a 2.2 kernel needs the new pppd package to
work, but that it doesn't work with the old pppd package.)
Remco
