Re: udev badness!
Hi,
I my case the -62 version of udev is a blessing. Its the first version
of udev that I can leave completely enabled and still have a booting/
working kernel. And, yes, I do build my own kernels...
Ed Tomlinson
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 14:36, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
> 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
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrei
>
Reply to: