Re: Bug#331391: Re: ftpmaster: Please remove 2.6.8 kernel images
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:16:34AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 01:32:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:20:44PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 08:36:41PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > > tags 331391 moreinfo
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 05:34:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > > Hi ftpmasters,
> > > >
> > > > Hi Horms,
> > > >
> > > > > After discussion with the d-i team, the 2.6.8 kernel
> > > > > can now be removed from the archive. Accordinly, please remove
> > > > > the following packages:
> > > > >
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-alpha
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-hppa
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-i386
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-ia64
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-m68k
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-s390
> > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-sparc
> > > > > kernel-patch-2.6.8-hppa
> > > > > kernel-patch-2.6.8-m68k
> > > > > kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8
> > > > > kernel-source-2.6.8
> > > > > kernel-kbuild-2.6-3
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition, the following packages should be removed,
> > > > > but they should have been hijacked by linux-2.6, I am not
> > > > > sure why this hasn't happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-alpha
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-amd64
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-hppa
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-i386
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-s390
> > > > > kernel-latest-2.6-sparc
> > > >
> > > > Removing the first list will break the second list, in particular, those
> > > > kernel-headers-2.6-subarch packages. So the magical short names for 'latest
> > > > kernel headers' will cease to work in unstable then.
> > >
> > > Nope, the latest are now provided by the linux-2.6 package as a legacy
> > > compatibility thingy and depend on the linux-image 2.6.12 kernels. I think
> > > from now on, and with the exception of the mips kernels, all 2.6 kernel
> > > related source packages which are not linux-2.6 should go.
> >
> > Sven, I don't think this is the case. Examining
> > kernel-headers-2.6-686-smp in sid I find that it is a package
> > produced by the kernel-latest-2.6-i386 source package. I do not
> > see it provided as a virtual or real package by linux-2.6.
> > If I understand Jeroen correctly, this needs to be resolved.
> >
> > In a nutshell it seems that kernel-image-2.6-<flavour> is
> > handled by linux-2.6 but kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour>
> >
> > This problem does not seem to exist on powerpc because the header
> > packages, (called kernel-build-*) were never released as generic
> > 2.6-<flavour> dummy packages. However, adding
> > kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour> as part of the transition would do no harm.
>
> Indeed -- I asked about this, because I do not know enough about the usage of
> kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour> packages, whether it would make sense to seize to
> provide those, and break upgrade path for them. It might be the case that that
> would make more sense than to continue their existance -- but it is not
> something I can judge, the kernel team can do so much better.
>
> (...)
> > it seems we need to add a little more package magic first.
>
> So that is up to you -- if the kernel team decides that no upgrade path is
> needed on the other hand, that's fine with me too. I merely want it to be
> well-thoughtover decision, and not an implicit consequence :).
Well, the upgrade consequences are much less for kernel-headers
than for kernel-image, but still worth worrying about IMHO.
In an nutshell, whatever was done for kernel-image-2.6-<flavour>
should be done for kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour>
I'll look into making this happen unless someone beats me too it.
(Please feel free to if you are interested :)
--
Horms
Reply to: