Re: udev

[Florian Kulzer <florian@molphys.leidenuniv.nl>]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 23:06:06 +0000, Adam Hardy wrote:
> Florian Kulzer on 30/10/06 22:34, wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:17:27 +0000, Adam Hardy wrote:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>I pinned udev to version 0.079.1 a while back after suffering some 
> >>serious hassle with it when etch was testing.
> >                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Etch is still testing.
> >
> >>I'm still on etch - and synaptic claims that this is still the latest 
> >>version available. Must be wrong, surely?
> >
> >I am not sure how synaptic deals with package pins. What does does
> >"apt-cache policy udev" give you? The udev version currently in Etch is
> >0.100-2.
> 
> Oh is it still testing? Thought I read that it had gone stable. Maybe 
> someone just said it was stable the adjective, rather than stable the noun.
> 
> I should remember that apt-cache policy trick.
> 
> udev:
>   Installed: 0.079-1
>   Candidate: 0.100-2
>   Version table:
>      0.100-2 0
>         500 http://ftp.debian.skynet.be etch/main Packages
>         500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org etch/main Packages
>  *** 0.079-1 0
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> a
> 
> I guess it's come along way.
> 
> Is there a apt-cache cmd to show what kernel 0.100-2 depends on?

The chain of package dependencies is like this:
Debian linux image --depends--> initramfs-tools --depends--> udev

The current kernel in Etch (2.6.17) depends on initramfs-tools >= 0.53.
The current initramfs-tools in Etch (0.84) requires udev >= 0.086-1.

This does not make it clear if older kernels can run with newer versions
of udev, especially since the version of initramfs-tools also has an
influence. The safest bet is probably upgrading these three packages to
their current versions simultaneously.

-- 
Regards,
          Florian