Re: Bug#377697: Clarification on upgrade order for etch, was: Re: rageircd ftbfs on alpha
Hi Steve,
Il giorno 02/ago/06, alle ore 00:34, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
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 could not find any statement on what would be the upgrade process
from sarge to etch. This is why I asked on debian-devel for advise on
how to resolve this issue.
The answer (not only the one from Marco), was that etch will not
support 2.4 anymore.
If this is the case etch will require an upgrade process involving
the kernel update before any user-space update.
If this is not the case, I'm left with no option to include the much-
better performing epoll() support in squid, since upstream is not
willing to integrate a runtime check in the short term and I cannot
support such an intrusive unofficial patch (which, BTW, does not
exist at all ATM).
Since you are the one that has the last word on this, should I revert
this change until etch+1?
Regards,
--
Luigi Gangitano -- <luigi@debian.org> -- <gangitano@lugroma3.org>
GPG: 1024D/924C0C26: 12F8 9C03 89D3 DB4A 9972 C24A F19B A618 924C 0C26
Reply to: