[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 10:57:27PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, they need to reboot after installing udev/lvm, not before.
> > Then you've once again left the user without any assurance that their system
> > is bootable at the end of the udev/lvm install.

> Which is the same than the other way around. (For example the device
> mapper api version changed around 2.6.5 and older devmapper versions was
> not longer able to work.)

Does this mean that the sarge lvm2 package doesn't work with kernels from
etch?  If so, then bug #351679 *is* RC.

> >                                                  We *must* avoid leaving the
> > user in a state where rebooting the system could leave /usr and /var
> > unmountable, the network inaccesible, and so on.

> The old initrd is not changed at this time and can mount at least /. 

This means you're not guaranteed to get /usr/sbin/sshd, which many admins
use exclusively for system administration where remote kvm is not an
affordable option.  That's a pretty big problem.

> > > Which should be used.
> > I don't see anywhere you've specified a mechanism for determining what
> > kernel image this is, or ensuring that it is configured first.

> Hu?

The stated problem is that upgrades from sarge to etch require the user to
go to a bunch of extra work to change out their kernel before they can
dist-upgrade.  I haven't heard you say "lvm will depend on the linux-image
package it needs", or anything equivalent, which means the preinst check for
running kernel version is the only protection against a completely broken

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: