Re: [D-I] Preparing for update in stable
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 11:28, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries
> > in the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need
> > some dak changes, and it's a bit risky, because dak assumes at various
> > places that the (packagename, suite, architecture) tuple is unique
> > (which then, it isn't anymore). But before exploring that possibility
> > -- is keeping those udebs in pool enough? Or would it require d-i
> > changes? Would d-i require changes if all udebs in question were in the
> > Packages files?
>
> We're talking about kernel udebs here. For some architectures these have
> the ABI in the package name, so for those there should be no problem,
> you'd have two different packages with different names. For example:
> cdrom-core-modules-2.4.27-2-386-di (1.04)
> cdrom-core-modules-2.4.27-3-386-di (1.04sarge1)
>
> Some other architectures - including powerpc, arm, mips(el) and the
> "speakup" kernel udebs for i386 - do not have the ABI in the package
> name. Here though, having both the old and the new in the Package file
> would not help because d-i could not distinguish between them anyway when
> downloading the udebs, so keeping the old udebs might result in breaking
> both the old _and_ the new media.
I thought the consensus here was to add the ABI version to the updated kernels
for those arches lacking it, at least i was asking about this for powerpc.
> My suggestion would be, if possible, to keep only those old kernel udebs
> that _do_ have the ABI in the package name.
That said, since we are dealing with .udebs here, and not .debs, the question
has a trivial answer. It is enough to rebuild those .udebs package adding the
ABI version as needed. And in this case, having no ABI (2.4.27-powerpc) and
having an ABI (2.4.27-3-powerpc) is enough to do the distinction.
Furthermore, i want to remember everyone concerned here, that as far as sarge
powerpc kernels are concerned, only apus and miboot are using 2.4.x kernels,
and so it makes no real sense to do too much work, as apus is hardly a problem
with regard to security-fixed d-i images, and the official d-i images lack
miboot support anyway, and are thus useless.
This is unless there are 2.6 sarge kernels with the same problem though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: