| 1 |
Robin H. Johnson posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:21:40 +0000 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I think we should examine dropping virtual/modutils from system. |
| 4 |
> It'll be on most systems anyway however. It's needed to build any |
| 5 |
> kernel, so the only place where it won't be would be a system with a |
| 6 |
> monolithic kernel that was built on a different host and copied over or |
| 7 |
> used for booting without being on the filesystem (common in VMs). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I beg to disagree. I've been building monolithic kernels for years now, |
| 10 |
and had module-init-tools in package.provided and not on the system at |
| 11 |
all. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In fact, that's the case for both my main amd64 system and my 32-bit x86 |
| 14 |
netbook system. No module-init-utils. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You are however correct that it'll be on most systems, at least with |
| 17 |
udev-181, since udev won't build without kmod, now. (I found that out |
| 18 |
when the build broke on me due to missing kmod, as I've had udev unmasked |
| 19 |
for awhile and got 181 before kmod was added as a dep.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 23 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 24 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives