Re: Problem with 2.3.1-8 for hppa
At Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:00:52 -0800,
Randolph Chung wrote:
> > Oops! I'm sorry, I fixed as follows:
> > + # Note that parisc64 kernel version scheme is "`uname -r`-64".
> [...]
> > - if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-pa17
> > + if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-64
> > then
> > echo WARNING: This version of libc6 requires that you be running
> > echo atleast a 2.4.19-pa17 kernel (or 2.5.53-pa3 if you use
>
> not really....
>
> if someone builds a kernel themselves and not use a debian kernel
> package, then the version is still 2.4.xx-payy, so your check will
> succeed even though the custom built kernel is 2.4.19-pa1
Hmm, the scheme of parisc64 kernel version number is more complex :-)
> i guess you can do something like this:
> if [ $ver = ${ver/pa/} ]
> then
> if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-64
> then
> [...]
> else
> if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-pa17
> then
> [...]
>
> it's kinda ugly, but it should work.
Thanks. I applied your idea, it's ok for me. I attached the preinst code.
Randolph, is it finally OK?
# parisc64 boxes require latest fixes in the kernel 2.4.19-pa17 or later
# (in 2.4.x), 2.5.53-pa3 or later (in 2.5.x), to function properly.
# Note that parisc64 kernel version scheme is "`uname -r`-64".
if [ "$realarch" = parisc64 ]
then
kernel_ver=`uname -r`
if [ $ver = ${ver/pa/} ]
then
if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-64
then
echo WARNING: This version of libc6 requires that you be
echo running at least a 2.4.19-64 to work properly.
echo Earlier kernels did not provide the proper functionality
echo in order for the system to be stable.
exit 1
fi
else
if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.19-pa17
echo WARNING: This version of libc6 requires that you be
echo running at least a 2.4.19-pa17 (in 2.4) or 2.5.53-pa3
echo (in 2.5) to work properly.
echo Earlier kernels did not provide the proper functionality
echo in order for the system to be stable.
exit 1
fi
fi
fi
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: