Bug#633961: linux images must conflict with unfixed input-utils
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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.
That doesn't answer the question "Why" there are no versioned virtual
packages.
> > 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.
Why isn't that going to happen?
That's the one proper solution in this case.
Especially considering that Backports are now more or less an official
part of Debian, there are many scenarios where a stable update does not
solve the problem.
And keep in mind that if the fix for input-utils wasn't that trivial,
a stable update would not even be an option.
> Ben.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: