On 2016-05-08 at 03:45, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2016 00:51:57 +0200 Pierre Ynard <linkfanel@yahoo.fr> > wrote: >> I was thinking more along the lines of adding some central check >> in dpkg maybe, that detects the lack of i686 support and errors out >> on new, incompatible packages. Discriminating packages could be as >> simple as a by-passable check on the build/release date. But then >> this is a bit late to implement in advance. > > It's not about simply blocking installs - the package to be installed > is being upgraded for a reason, so blocking the install just blocks > the bug fix or blocks upgrades of other dependent packages, until > the binary is rebuilt in stable. That's why the advice is to move > this box to stable - ask for backports of any packages which need > updates from testing. > > You have four years to decide whether to replace this hardware or > continue running jessie without support. I read this suggestion as being less about this particular box, and more about preventing (other) people from having this breakage happen unexpectedly. In this particular case, it's already too late, after all. Even if running unstable, I would certainly expect that something which is known to break certain types of systems this badly would be announced at package install time, giving me a chance to cancel the install... and the more so considering that people keep talking about tracking sid as being a reasonable thing to do, although I myself decided years ago from experience that it was a bad idea. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature