On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 19:24 +0000, Oliver Gerlich wrote: > Brian: it seems that m-a is not so much immature as "only" badly integrated > in Ubuntu...
No, I disagree. I don't think it's any different than it is in Debian. It's just the way the tool works. It's "sub-optimal" (if you don't want to use the word "immature"). > Feature-wise you can run "m-a a-i lirc" and get working LIRC modules installed Indeed. But why should I have to (remember (how) to do this every time the kernel is upgraded)? > (it asks a few times in the process for a "y" whether you want to install kernel-headers and bla bla, and then automatically installs kernel-headers and build-essentials). Yup. More stuff I should not have to (remember (how) to do). > What's lacking is some GTK GUI integration which hides the "y" pressing :-) Nope. Completely wrong solution, IMHO. > and maybe it would be nice if m-a would then be run automatically at every kernel upgrade... Ahh. Now you are talking about the _maturity_ of DKMS. Instead of trying to wrangle m-a to do exactly what DKMS actually does, why not just use DKMS. Probably DKMS could be made to simply call m-a if that's the way you really wanted to go with it. > It's not lacking very much, in fact it only seems to lack an end-user compatible GUI. Again, I disagree. A GUI is the wrong solution. Automation, hidden from the poor end-user is the right solution. Or as Mario says in a followup, integration with linux-ubuntu-modules, so that binary modules come out of the box. b. -- My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell -- Installing Lirc support should be simpler https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/65174 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
