Re: udev badness!
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:20:44AM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> This kind of misses the point. It's not the stability of the code, but
> whether or not the packaging system has sufficient information about
> dependencies for this package.
It is perfectly normal for a package in unstable to have unsatisfiable
dependencies. In fact this happens quite often ever since unstable
exists. udev is special only in the sense that it does not depend on the
actual kernel package (and it shouldn't) so apt/dpkg will not warn you.
And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running
a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early...
> When this version of udev migrates into
> testing it will still cause just as many problems (and for a much
> greater number of users).
There is already an RC bug filed for udev, that will keep it out from
testing.
> udev should probably declare a dependency on
> a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it
> from being installed (due to unmet dependencies).
No. udev should _not_ depend on any kernel pacakges. There are many
users who build their own kernels and therefore do not have any
kernel-image packages installed at all. udev must still work in this
situation.
I think there were way too few significant breakages in unstable lately
and new people are not used to how unstable really works (especially at
the beginning of a new release cycle).
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: