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

Bug#700884: marked as done (linux: please use a three-number version for experimental kernel packages)

Your message dated Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:52:33 -0500
with message-id <CANTw=MNg+MTp-pXxLFrepgcaxxCNbNM3f84q28mnHaXGtiO-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#700884: linux: please use a three-number version for experimental kernel packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #700884,
regarding linux: please use a three-number version for experimental kernel packages
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
700884: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700884
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: linux
severity: important
control: affects -1 src:debootstrap

uname presents a two-number version in the experimental kernel packages, e.g.

$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
ii  linux-image-3.7-trunk-amd64                    3.7.3-1~experimental.1
$ uname -r
3.7-trunk-amd64

This makes it impossible to bootstrap releases older than squeeze
(when running an experimental kernel).  See bug #642031.  As mentioned
in that bug report, debootsrap could include a fake-uname LD_PRELOAD,
but that is quite ugly, and Joey Hess is understandably reluctant to
do that.

Please consider using a three-number version for the experimental packages.

Thanks,
MIke

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Control: tag -1 wontfix
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:15:11PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> [...]
>> That's using a kernel three releases newer than the userland.  We
>> generally like backward compatibility, but I don't it's tenable to go
>> that far.
>
> I quite agree.  We've kept the fake '.0' for wheezy to keep old
> userland working but at the risk of confusing users ('why aren't you
> including stable updates?').  I don't want to carry on with that
> workaround.

wontfix is acceptable to me, so no reason to leave the bug report open.

Best wishes,
Mike

--- End Message ---
Reply to: