Re: Bug#571255: Please fix this
2010/5/13 Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On May 12, David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies+debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Good that i am not a developer so i can say crap and ask afterwards
>> > for pointers to a documentation which tells me why udev can't e.g.
>> > Breaks: linux-image-686 (<< x), linux-image-amd64 (<< x), ?
>> *Breaks* may work, dependencies are not acceptable.
>> Are there any objections from anybody to trying this?
>
> Nope, I thinks it's nicer than the previous work-around. It's just going
> to be somewhat painful to have the complete list for all architectures (or
> to customize it for each architecture).
Maybe even linux-image-2.6-amd64 and so on should be used.
The popcon [0] for these is much higher so the trick will work for more…
The Breaks line will "just" be awful long but customization for architectures
shouldn't be needed as all these non-available packages will be pure
virtual packages so APT & Co. can't care much less about them…
The Breaks are just not the ultimate solution: Users without these
metapackages (e.g. someone who is used to compiled his own kernel)
will get nothing - just as without the Breaks.
So udev still needs to fail if no supported kernel is installed.
It is just that this is less likely for a default install at least.
If that would be a "normal" package it should be also Breaks the old
kernel versions so they get removed from the system - i just don't like
the idea of possibly removing the currently running kernel…
>> Also for a working system. There have been enough changes that the old
>> udev will not like the new configuration files and will probably not
>> work much, so the system must be rebooted ASAP after upgrading
>> kernel+udev.
So i would even more vote for a note in the release notes.
On slow machines upgrades can easily run for an hour or two and/or users
tend to do stuff while an upgrade is running in the background so ASAP
can have very different definitions… And what does a user have to expect
if he doesn't reboot immediately? Could the system freeze for example?
If the upgrade would be still running… ++ungood.
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
[0] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=linux-latest-2.6
unfortunately the table doesn't include all binary packages, but out
of 24621 adm64 popconers 20983 have the linux-image-2.6-amd64
installed… = 85% coverage
Reply to: