Re: Possibility for dependencies against specific kernel modules
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:37:50PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> For a really neat and complete solution you'd IMO still need something
> like I proposed though to make the vbox ABI visible in package names, but
> that can probably be postponed until after Lenny.
Well it is, namely the upstream version number. To be honest I'm not sure
whether the ABI really changes, we might get away by relaxing the test made by
the software, but that would require us to check for every update which doesn't
seem a good idea either.
> Consequence would be that we'll need uploads of both l-m-e (to remove the
> vbox-modules package) and this new package.
> *If* we can be sure that for Lenny there will not be any vbox ABI changes
> (which I'd think is a certainty), we could also for lenny go for a
> pragmatic solution: just reupload l-m-e once now (built against new vbox
> source) and let that migrate to testing.
Which exactly happened at about the same time I send my email. So forget about
the Lenny consequences for this new package.
> A final solution for Lenny could be to reupload 1.6.2-dfsg-6 (with epoch
> and possibly with added backported fixes).
Given that we now have 1.6.6 modules in Sid I don't think we have to discuss
this alternative anymore.
> The upload of the new upstream to unstable really wasn't a very good idea,
> and neither was requesting it to migrate to testing...
See the discussion about this before. At the very least we have a strong
backing from upstream to use 1.6.6 which is a bugfix release over 1.6.2.
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: email@example.com
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!