Re: Bug#331391: Re: ftpmaster: Please remove 2.6.8 kernel images
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:38:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 01:32:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > Nope, the latest are now provided by the linux-2.6 package as a legacy
> > > compatibility thingy and depend on the linux-image 2.6.12 kernels. I think
> > > from now on, and with the exception of the mips kernels, all 2.6 kernel
> > > related source packages which are not linux-2.6 should go.
> >
> > Sven, I don't think this is the case. Examining
> > kernel-headers-2.6-686-smp in sid I find that it is a package
> > produced by the kernel-latest-2.6-i386 source package. I do not
> > see it provided as a virtual or real package by linux-2.6.
> > If I understand Jeroen correctly, this needs to be resolved.
> >
> > In a nutshell it seems that kernel-image-2.6-<flavour> is
> > handled by linux-2.6 but kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour>
> >
> > This problem does not seem to exist on powerpc because the header
> > packages, (called kernel-build-*) were never released as generic
> > 2.6-<flavour> dummy packages. However, adding
> > kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour> as part of the transition would do no harm.
>
> Well, i wonder if this is a bad thing or not, or if we should kill the
> meta-backward-compatible-header packages. We have to see the use case oif
> those, which are exclusively used to build modules, and we need to setup a new
> way of building modules and document it anyway, so this should not be a major
> problem.
>
> Also, if the user don't upgrade those, nothing major will break, apart from
> the fact that he has a few unused bits on his harddisk.
>
> So, i vote for simply removing them, and provide some notice of the fact and
> the new module build model in the release notes or something.
Its an upgrade problem, but it doesn't affect that many users
(I guess). I'm happy with your idea as long as you've considered
the upgrade problem.
--
Horms
Reply to: