Re: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:27:32PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:54:04AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:01:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I write this email to ask, now that linux-2.6 2.6.12-6 is in testing, there
> > > isn't any reason to keep those 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels around, A quick
> > > glance listed those :
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > > Also, if there are 2.6.8 kernels in sid/etch still, these can be removed as
> > > well.
> >
> > Please see #317079, #322697 and and #323183. This report is a duplicate from
> > what's already in those three reports, so please followup to them where
> > appropriate. I already see a duplicate discussion on whether 2.6.8 can be
> > removed, so please coordinate in the -kernel team about this, I mailed -kernel
> > about it before, and there's a bug on the kernel package (#323183) about it.
>
> First up I'd like to applogise for the confusion and multiple bug
> reports surrounding this. The simple truth is that the legacy
> of the Sarge-era kernel packaging has left us with a mess, that
> we are trying to sift through and slowly clean up. Its turning
> out to be quite complicated, and thats not something that
> you should have been asked to worry about.
I understand,
> I suggest that we just track this as 323183, rather than mucking around
> with opening and merging existing bugs. Please let me know if you would
> prefer a different approach.
No, that is fine. Having just one report makes things easiest -- though the
most important thing is a clear overview of which sourcepackages are really
ready to be removed and which are not yet -- an overview which you've
succeeded quite well to produce.
> I've just spent a bit of time looking through this and here
> is a summary of where I beleive we are, others, please comment
> if this is inaccurate or incomplete. If there are ammendments
> I'll try and correlate them into an updated list.
>
> Already removed:
> kernel-image-2.6.11-s390 (done in Bug #317079)
> kernel-image-2.6.11-sparc (done in Bug #317079)
> kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.11 (done in Bug #317079)
> kernel-source-2.6.11 (done in Bug #317079)
>
> kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha (done in Bug #322697)
> kernel-image-2.6.10-hppa (done in Bug #322697)
> kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc (done in Bug #322697)
> kernel-source-2.6.10 (done in Bug #322697)
Indeed, I removed both source packages and all of the kernel-* stuff that
was broken by that removal. I did leave some 3rd-party packages around that
seemed like they 'just' needed to be upgraded to 2.6.12.
> Ready for removal by ftpmasters
> kernel-source-2.4.24
> kernel-source-2.4.25
> kernel-source-2.4.26
Reverse-dependencies:
** pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386 has an unsatisfied build-dependency: kernel-tree-2.4.26-2
** user-mode-linux has an unsatisfied build-dependency: kernel-source-2.4.26
I guess pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386 should be dropped too, and user-mode-linux
left broken for the moment?
> kernel-image-2.6.11-alpha
> kernel-image-2.6.11-amd64
> kernel-image-2.6.11-i386
> kernel-image-2.6.11-ia64
All gone already ttbomk.
> kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa
Still around, ok.
> kernel-latest-2.6-amd64
Ditto -- shouldn't this one be simply superseded by packages generated by a
next upload of linux-2.6?
> fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen)
>
> mol-modules-2.6.11
Ok.
After you clarified my two minor questions, could you please reassign this bug
back to ftp.debian.org? I'll then remove all packages mentioned from "Ready
for removal by ftpmasters" up until here. You can then open a new bug for the
packages mentioned below when the time is there.
> Will be ready for removal once d-i moves from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12
> (...)
> Not ready for removal
> (...)
Thanks a lot,
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: