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

Bug#633961: linux images must conflict with unfixed input-utils



On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >...
> > This is wrong on so many levels.
> > 1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
> 
> Why not?

1. There are many different binary packages for different hardware
configurations, and we add and remove them quite regularly.
2. Although the binary packages provide virtual packages, virtual
packages aren't versioned.

> How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
> (I know that self-compiled kernels are a different story, but for
>  kernel packages that should be possible.)

It can't.  The only kind of relation you can use to binary kernel
packages is an exact dependency from a binary module package.

[...]
> > I suspect that the correct way to deal with this may be to build
> > input-utils from the linux-2.6 source package and add some sort of
> > wrapper in linux-base to select the right version (like we do for
> > perf).
> > 
> > Or, you change the program to check which protocol version to use at
> > run-time.
> 
> After looking a bit into it, and especially at commit ab4e0192
> (Input: define separate EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2/EVIOCSKEYCODE_V2) in
> the kernel, the correct fix for input-utils is a different and
> quite simple one:
> 
> The input kernel<->userspace API might be enhanced with additional 
> functionality in the future, but it will never change in a way that 
> breaks the ABI.
> 
> Therefore the old functionality input-utils is using will always
> be available, and the bug was that EVIOCGVERSION shouldn't be used
> to check with equality for EV_VERSION (version >= 0x010001 might
> be a valid check for software using EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2).
> 
> A patch for input-utils to remove the wrong version check is below.
> 
> After that, a Breaks in all kernel images on the unfixed input-utils 
> would be required.
[...]

Not going to happen.  You need to fix this through a stable update.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: