dann frazier <dannf@???> writes:
> If I understand this correctly, that would mean that etch users would
> be forced to move to the new module code, right?. I don't doubt that
> it would work just fine, but objective #1 is to minimize risk to
> existing etch users.
Yes, that's true.
>> Alternately, we could provide an openafs-modules-source-etchnhalf
>> package that conflicts and replaces openafs-modules-source, although
>> that seems a little weird to me.
> Why would it need to conflict replace? Could they install into
> separate locations?
All that's in the package is a tarball in /usr/src (it's the standard
module build pattern). If it were called something other than
openafs.tar.gz or expanded into a different directory, wouldn't that
confuse tools like module-assistant?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@???) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to project-etchnahalf-unsubscribe@???.
(text/plain)