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

Re: Inclusion of kernel version in kernel package names: A followup

> 	One, since each new kernel version essentially creates a new
>  orthogonal package (so kernel-image-1.3.95 does not conflict with or
>  replace kernel-image-1.3.97), and kernel image packages are marked
>  essential, it is not easy to remove kernel-image-1.3.95 when, say, 
>  kernel-image-2.0.2 comes out.  In fact, you have to use 
>  dpkg --force-remove-essential to do so.
> 	This is maybe not of consequence to seasoned users, but this
>  is less than a satisfactory situation.  However, removing the
>  essential flag does not seem to be the solution, since it _is_
>  essential to have at least one kernel image on the system.

What about another package, which is marked as essential, depend on
the kernel-image virtual package.

> 	Secondly, since the actual name of the package is
>  Name: kernel-image-1.3.95 Version: 1.3.95-0, there maybe versions
>  1.3.95-2, 1.3.95-4, etc, there never will be kernel-image-1.3.95
>  version 1.3.97-0. Oh dear, I'm rambling. What I mean is, how do I say
>  my package foo will need kernel-image, version 1.3.96 or above? 
> 	Can I say foo needs virtual package kernel-image, >> 1.3.95 ?
>  Ian? or is this abusing the virtual package paradigm?

IMO, we should support this.  We should probably also extend the
'Provides' syntax to allow the virtual package version number to be
specified.  For example:

	Provides: kernel-image (1.3.96)

David Engel                        Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081

Reply to: