Re: Upgrading to current udev is disastrous if not on kernel 2.6.12
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:33:12PM +0200, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>
>>Am Samstag, den 16.07.2005, 17:22 +1000 schrieb Hamish Moffatt:
>>
>>>I can't imagine how it's a good idea to upload a package which depends
>>>on a kernel not available for Debian yet.
>>
>>Packages should not depend on any kernel, since many people run their
>>own. However, I just don't understand why the package has been published
>>at all, since even in experimental there is no 2.6.12.
>
>
> Yes I mean depend as in need, not as in Depends: in the package control
> file. The new udev needs a new kernel. Most users don't have that
> kernel. It does not seem logical to upload the new udev then.
>
> Even if you build your own you should use make-kpkg.
I suppose that's true... For whatever reason, I've never been able to
get into the habit of make-kpkg on my individual workstation. It's
fantastic for groups of production machines and any situation where
consistency is warranted.
I wonder if it wouldn't be easier for stock kernel users if there were a
convenience script that used equivs to satisfy the kernel dependency,
Debian-style, as it were. Given something like that was available and
easy to use, from a "distribution integrity" perspective an explicit
Depends: on a kenrel version doesn't seem like such a bad thing for
situations like udev. Of course, it only solves the coarse-grained
"this version is required" problem, and not any finer-grained things
like "the Debian-patched version of the kernel is required."
tony
Reply to: