On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:11:14PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > > I have no idea about the abichanges, m68k uses no abiname? Is that a problem? > > The downside of not includeing an abiname in the package name is that > > past d-i releases will break once the updated kernels and udebs reach > > testing. > So they not yet released d-i "releases" break on the most popular arch of > the early nineties. Does anybody care? If there were abinames in the m68k > package (-1, -2, ... added to the package name?), would we create a new > package for every abichange? Doesn't that contradict the plan of d-kernel to > reduce the number of kernel-packages? The point of using an abiname in your package naming is that you're assured (barring bugs) that all kernel modules in your search path are compatible with that kernel version. If you use /lib/modules/2.4.27-$subarch instead of /lib/modules/2.4.27-$abiname-$subarch, you have no mechanism for coping with version skew when a Debian revision includes a change to the public interfaces used by modules. It does not contradict the plans for keeping the kernel package count down, because you don't get to keep both ABI versions around -- you don't want the old one *anyway*, because it has security bugs. In any case, the source package names are kept the same and only the binary package names change, so you only ever get one of these in testing at a time. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature