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

Re: Bug#325484: udev >= 0.060-1 and kernels >= 2.6.12

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:06:39AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > 1) upgrade your kernel
> > > > 2) dist-upgrade

> > > > That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me?  And if people choose not to
> > > > read, well, they get a failure on dist-upgrade and get to figure it out
> > > > for themselves, I guess.

> > > Will that still apply in the case of a home-rolled kernel?

> > Yes, of course.  The reason this is such an issue in the first place is
> > because kernel dependencies are *not* expressed as package dependencies;
> > instead, udev checks the running kernel version in the preinst.

> Thanks for the clarification.

> > > However, if you have to compile your own kernel, do you upgrade kernel,
> > > dist-upgrade and then recompile with the new gcc?

> > Why?

> Becuase I roll my own kernel.  If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new
> modules to my kernel.  Thus, those with a self-compiled kernel are in a
> situation where you can a) dist-upgrade without first upgrading the
> kernel and risk breakage; or b) upgrade the kernel twice.  Once before
> and once after.  I suppose that it is possible to build the new kernel
> inside of a chroot (or sbuild or pbuilder) if kernel-package is being
> used.

> I am simply pointing out that there is a potential issue that needs to
> at least be addressed in the release notes.

Ah, yes.  I really don't understand why the kernel embeds the gcc
version into its version-matching logic, but I've run into this problem
as well.  I agree that it warrants documenting, though I also suspect
that most users running self-compiled 2.6 kernels are going to be
running something a bit newer than 2.6.8 anyway.

Option a) doesn't seem particularly sensible to me, btw, because the
"risk" is near certain...

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: