On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 10:00:00PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [041101 21:45]: > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:44:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > during my investigation for the next release update, it seems that there > > > are more upgrade issues related to the kernel than I had tought. With > > > the great help from a lot of people I compiled that list: > > > + real i386 - already handled by Frank together with the kernel team. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/10/msg00256.html > > > > > + hppa: 64bit kernel with 32bit user land - details unknown. > > > > > + arm: upgrade doesn't work with 2.2, but can work with 2.4.24 or above. > > > (perhaps also with older versions, currently unknown) > > > (details: glibc vs kernel, source: kylem, tested on netwinder) > > Considering 2.4.24 is not included in woody, I think a test with a 2.4 > > kernel that *is* in woody is called for. > I think it is sufficient if the kernel is in sarge, e.g. 2.4.27, which > is above 2.4.24. Of course, this should be tested with exactly the > kernel that is in sarge. Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-netwinder [...] Version: 2.4.27 [...] Depends: initrd-tools (>= 0.1.32), coreutils (>= 5.0), modutils (>= 2.4.15) You can't install this package on a woody system; neither the coreutils nor the modutils dependency can be satisfied there without first pulling in the new glibc. We want to reduce the need for special "upgrade" directories as much as possible, so it's *very* relevant to know whether the kernel shipped with woody is sufficient. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature