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

Re: making udev require 2.6.15 kernels

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:45:04AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:57:25AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> > acceptable for the etch release, as has been said already in the past.

> Hmm. Are there problems with the following:
> - Upgrade works but asks the not yet completed dkt to disable old images
>   which raises a big fat warning that it needs a reboot.

Context from IRC:

01:55 < svenl> waldi: dkt ?
01:56 < waldi> svenl: the piece of software I just work on
01:56 < vorlon> which does what?
01:56 < waldi> https://lophos.multibuild.org/svn/dkt/trunk/doc/design
01:56 < waldi> it is mostly a generic replacement of update-grub

Anyway, I don't see that this is a very good solution.  Disabling all of the
available boot options for the system doesn't prevent incidental breakage,
it just changes the *kind* of incidental breakage you get.  The *least* bad
solution we have today is that some packages (lvm, udev) refuse in the
preinst to continue being installed when upgrading from sarge (lvm for
upgrades from either 2.4.27 or 2.6.8; udev from 2.6.8 only), and then the
user is left to figure out how to get a viable 2.6.1x kernel package onto
their system after a dist-upgrade has left God knows how many packages in an
unconfigured or inconsistent state.

Anything that introduces the possibility of the system breaking on
reboot/power failure is *worse* than this.

> - Refuse to start on startup if no compatible version is found.

What does this mean, exactly?  Should that be "upgrade" instead of
"startup"?  And how does that help us improve users' experience when

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: