Re: Inclusion of kernel version in kernel package names: A followup
On 14 May 1996, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
> The discussion is in regards to removing image packages. All
> I intend to do is to try to determine if I can see any other images
> on the disk, or else warn the user that they might be rendering their
> system un bootable. So, if you use loadlin, then the prerm script
> will ask you if you want to continue. I think this aggravation is
> worth the safety net the naive user will get; they still have a
> chance to abort.
> Dale> I contend that neither the image nor the source packages have
> Dale> any business mucking around in /lib/modules.
> Huh? The source package doesn't touch /lib, and the image
> package just installs the precompiled modules. why should it not do
> Dale> It currently
> Dale> removes all modules dependancy files which requires running
> Dale> depmod -a to fix.
> Are you sure the new kernel-image packages do that? I think
> that you are talking about the old case when each new image replaced
> the older version. The new scheme explicitly *fixes* this problem.
The last test upgrade that I did for base and devel sections installed
image-1.3.64-0.deb and source-1.3.64-0.deb both of which produced profuse
messages about being unable to delete /lib/modules/xxx and managed to
remove the modules dependancy file.
I just looked at master, and find the image package replaced by
kernel-image-1.3.100-0.i386.deb. Is this the new package? It just showed
up. (BTW, isn't the architecture portion of the filename supposed to be
gone at this point?) I'm downloading it "as we speak" and will test it out
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257
Flexible Software Fax: NONE
Black Creek Critters e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------