Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day... then suddenly
> >there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
> >Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?
> I would second that. A site I work for was severely bitten by the last
> squeeze point release since the kernel ABI changed and the kernel
> module udebs (loaded from a rsynced mirror) did not fit the (unsynced)
> kernel/initrd from the PXE server any more, resulting in newly
> deployed servers not even finding their disks.
I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
> Additionally, the new tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
> chip built into IBM's HS12. The site in question would have rejected
> the last point release for that reason, if it were possible to go
>  Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
Just point to the bug report and stop stirring. I'm sorry this has
introduced a regression for these systems, but you have a workaround
and the backport enabled installation on many other systems.
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus