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

Re: udev badness!

On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:26 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> 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.

I absolutely agree, unstable has been like that for ages, once in a
while, a few packages have unsatisfied dependencies and after a few
days/weeks get installed when its dependence moves to unstable. 

> And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running
> a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early...
Well, it did install and it did brake my system a bit, which has never
happened since about 1999 when i first moved to unstable branch of
debian. I think there should be a warning where user can opt to choose
no and skip the installation of the package that doesn't run without the
package that is not even available for unstable branch. This way, user
can choose for himself instead of trusting the system updates (a
microsoft way of updating things).

> > 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.
True, i don't think it should tie the dependence to the kernel. Way too
many people use custom build kernels and it will make them upset. I was
using custom build kernels before and only recently switched to debian
stock kernel, which pleases me in every way.

> 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).
yeah, i remember switching to unstable from 2.2r1 or r2, don't remember
now. But i've spent so much time trying to fix broken packages, i've
almost regretted it. Debian is doing very good for it's packaging system
and dependencies. keep up the great job!

> Gabor
> -- 
>      ---------------------------------------------------------
>      MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
>                 Hungarian Academy of Sciences
>      ---------------------------------------------------------


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: