[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Clarification on upgrade order for etch, was: Re: rageircd ftbfs on alpha



On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:48:09PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > epoll is specific to Linux 2.6.  You should not expect it to be available on
> > buildds for *any* architecture (except amd64) until after the release of
> > etch; packages must be able to build on buildds running in a chroot against
> > the previous stable release, and they must install and run when installed
> > against the previous stable release to support partial upgrades.

> Is this official RM policy?

It shouldn't have to be; the consequences of installing a package depending
on 2.6-specific features onto a sarge system running a 2.4 kernel are clear,
and any package maintainer should be ashamed to ship a package with etch
that silently breaks the package on upgrade instead of providing a proper
upgrade path.

> I ask, because some packages[1] already dropped 2.4 support *now* stating
> that Etch will not support 2.4 and simply provide a README.Debian (IIRC). 

That's not appropriate, but I'm not sure if I'll treat it as RC.  I may be
beyond caring at this point, seeing the poor condition that so many Debian
packages are in today.

> It should be clear if users need to update to 2.6 *before* starting
> the upgrade to Etch, or if they can update first to Etch but need to
> upgrade the kernel afterwards.

The upgrade path from sarge 2.6.8 to etch is *worse* than the upgrade path
from sarge 2.4.27 to etch, a fact that Marco d'Itri should be well aware of
given that udev is at the center of the problem.  To recommend that other
developers drop support for 2.4 in etch and ensure the upgrade path from 2.4
is just as bad is appalling.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/



Reply to: