On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 09:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2016-05-08 at 09:09, Neil Williams wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 08 May 2016 07:18:40 -0400 The Wanderer > > <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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: > > > 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... > > It's unstable - I've been running unstable on my main development > > laptop for ten years, most of the time that something has broken my > > system, I've had to be the one to report it! Some of those bugs have > > caused this level of breakage. > Yes, that's part of the 'bargain' of running unstable. > > The difference is that, presumably, the fact that the change which led > to that breakage would in fact so break things was not known in advance. > > I certainly do not expect such notification for every breakage which > occurs in unstable. I was speaking only about cases where the fact that > the breakage would occur was known in advance (which is the case here, > because the breakage is an intentional feature removal), and where the > breakage itself would be "bad enough" (in this case, essentially total). [...] You should probably blame me for not announcing the decision earlier, as I proposed and drove this change. However, the removal of the '586' kernel flavour should have provided some early warning of the change - linux-image-586 was changed to depend (indirectly) on linux-image-4.3.0-1-686, which would fail to boot. At that time the old kernel image would remain installed as a fallback, so this was recoverable. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part