Bug#380402: madwifi-source: Unneeded dependancy in generated madwifi-modules-[kernelversion] package

[Kel Modderman]

On Sunday 30 July 2006 10:34, infernix wrote:
> Kel Modderman wrote:
> > It breaks the dependency on a locally installed package, that has no
> > dependencies or control data? Please further convince me that this is
> > actually a problem in the packaging of this module, and that you should
> > not use equivs to satisfy these depends when installing local software.
> >
> > I personally like this dependency on the linux-image. The modules are
> > worthless without the linux-image. It also prevents the modules from
> > sticking around, wasting space, when the linux-image is removed.
>
> My point here is that if modules are built for a custom installed kernel
> (so no make-kpkg one), it should either be general for all module source
> packages to depend on [linux|kernel]-image-[kernelversion] or recommend
> it. What I'm seeing here is that for fgrlrx it's recommended, and for
> madwifi it's dependant on it.

I know your point, and guessed this was coming when I initially made the 
change. But you came much later than anticipated.

>
> I briefly discussed this in #debian-kernel:
>
> <infernix> is a module-assistant compiled package supposed to assume
> that the current kernel is a make-kpkg generated one and depend on it?
> <Manoj> no
> <Manoj> users are not required to install image .debs
> <Manoj> I mean, the package works just fine without the dependency for
> you, so the dependency is spurious

That is his opinion only. Although I respect his opinion as an experienced 
developer, I would also note that everyone has their own ;-)

>
> As a consequence, I filed this as a bug for madwifi-source, because I
> couldnt find any policies or guidelines. If you are positive that any
> module built with module-assistant is supposed to depend on
> [linux|kernel]-image-[kernelversion], I will file a bug with fglrx.

It is not only fglrx. Its a lack of defined policy for all external modules. 
There's quite a lot of variation among these packages.

> However, I have checked out ipw2100 and ndiswrapper and they did not
> depended on [linux|kernel]-image-[kernelversion] either. Haven't tried
> more but it might be worthwhile to check them all out.
>
> In either case, if there's no current stance on this, I think one should
> be made and it should be defined in modules-assistant's HOWTO-DEVEL so
> that all module source packages are doing the right thing.

This I _completely_ agree with. If you were to start a thread about this 
somewhere, I'd back you up with some conversation. That way it would be clear 
what is 'spurious' and what is good practise for all modules, and relieve the 
individual Maintainer from forming his/her own opinion on things ;-)

Thanks, Kel.