module-assistant support for zaptel
Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:01:30 +0300
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wro=
> El vie, 01-04-2005 a las 18:22 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen escribi=F3:
> > OK. Finally got it working. This was done by replacing the bogus
> > /usr/share/modass/packages/zaptel-source with a "standard" one. I=
> > put any "override" as I don't believe we need to fix in zaptel-so=
> > bug of module-assistant. For now I'd recommend the user to manual=
> > rm /usr/share/modass/packages/zaptel-source=20
> > ln -s default.sh /usr/share/modass/packages/zaptel-source=20
> Gah! Sad to hear this. I think that for some reason you're not usi=
> latest zaptel from SVN. During some days a zaptel-source.modass fil=
> existed in SVN which was installed as an override for m-a. I filled=
> bug which was fixed the other day, so I changed back to don't ship =
> overrides file and depend on m-a >=3D 0.8.1
> > I don't see why such file should exist in modass if the source fo=
> > zaptel is not available in the first place. It should be provided=
> > zaptel-source and not exist if zaptel-source is not installed. At=
> > moment ModAss reports of many shource packages I have "available"=
> > actually have almost none of them.
> They are there because you can select them and let m-a install sou=
> package if needed. That is the way that m-a a-i module works. For t=
> it needs to have first a file telling m-a which packages it does ne=
> install (using apt).
Let's do a little test:
for file in `ls /usr/share/modass/packages/`; do apt-cache show $fi=
le &>/dev/null || echo $file; done
This gives "source packages" that are supposed to be avilable and yet
apt does not know them. On my system:
I didn't ceck all of them, but the three I've checked are from
contrib/non-free and thus are not available for my system. Others may=
OTOH, the list of packages that depend on module-assistant is rather
$ apt-cache rdepends module-assistant
I see no reason why m-a should magically identify and install source
packages that were not built for use with it.
So module-assistant and my apt database are out-of-sync. Why should
module-assistant keep its own database separate from apt?
Anywaym that's my opinion regarding a package that is not part of
> > Anyway, my rules file is attached. It has very few rapid-specific=
> > but I believe that both those changes should come into Debian:
> > 1. There should not be a default /etc/zaptel.conf . It is documen=
> > the example. If you want to satisfy ztcfg, touch /etc/zaptel.conf=
> > postinst it there is no such file. However there is no point in b=
> > asked ot upgrade it by dpkg when upgrading the package.
> I am not sure about this. But taking a look at the config file, a=
> how criptic it is, I don't think we loose a lot by putting it
> in /usr/share/doc and telling in README.Debian to copy it over to /=
> if desired... But I would like to hear more comments.
> > 2. genzaptelconf is not yet in Debin. Do I need to=20
> > file a bug to have it included?
> Does this need to be in a separate source package, or can we incl=
> it with zaptel?
considering it is a simple shell script, I don't believe it warants i=
own package. genzaptelconf may also be used to generate a default
zaptel.conf for the system, assuming that all kernel modules have bee=
Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 +972-50-7952406