[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#419467: Whoa, upstream wontfix?

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:33:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:43:40AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:42:56PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > That's right, but what about people who have always been running testing
> > > > with a 2.4 kernel and have never seen (or were required to read, really,
> > > > I guess) the etch release notes?
> > > 
> > >   then the libc will refuse to upgrade for them, too bad.
> > 
> > That'd be fine if they had the option to install a Debian 2.6 kernel
> > instead and then continue.  But I fear that a cpio depending on
> > glibc-2.5 will soon afterwards transition to testing as well, and both
> > initramfs-tools and yaird depend on it, so running apt-get install
> > linux-image-2.6.*-*-* will lead to unsatisfied dependencies, AFAICT.
> > 
> > So those users will be left with either having to fix their system
> > manually with some dpkg commands, or stay with the current testing.
> > 
> > Or maybe I'm missing something and the issue is less severe in reality.
>   I don't see why they couldn't be able to wget a linux-image.......deb
> then dpkg -i it and reboot
>   that should do it properly, as I don't expect linux-image-* to depend
> upon a new libc. If it does, well, then the kernel team will have to
> work on that:)
>   It's not *nice* but it's bearable for testing or unstable users I'd
> say.

It's fine for unstable users, but (personally) I don't think it's really
living up to expectations for testing, maybe we should ask the release
team what they think about the situation.

At least, we should clearly spell this out in the glibc upgrade refusal
message (I haven't checked what the current text is like).


Reply to: