Hi Max, here's a bug which I submitted and you reassigned from linux-2.6 to kernel-package. It's now been closed for a variety of reasons, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to check whether the situation is now acceptable for linux-2.6.
Personally, I don't grok the details of generating official kernel images, but I'm using them and have not had problems with such warnings for a long time. Thus I don't object to closing. Regards, Frank ow...@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the kernel-package package: > > #369941: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686: Debconf question should be reworded, or > upgrade mechanism made more clever > > It has been closed by Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@golden-gryphon.com>. > > Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. > If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a > better one in a separate message then please contact Manoj Srivastava > <sriva...@golden-gryphon.com> by > replying to this email. > > > -- > 369941: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369941 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > From: Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@golden-gryphon.com> > Subject: Debconf questions > To: 369941-d...@bugs.debian.org > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:57:57 -0500 > Organization: Manoj Srivastava's Home > Mail-Copies-To: nobody > > Hi, > > Arguably, this is not a bug for a generic tool like > kernel-package, which is designed to create kernel images for all kinds > of constituencies. > > Secondly, none of the bootloader questions are now asked, though > the messages are not been toned down. And, unlike official kernel > images, of which there are few, kernel-package can be used to generate > several kernel images; I once had 24 images for 2.6.27 while I was > testing things. > > Thirdly, the kernel team changes the name of the kernel images > when an ABI change happens, this is unlikely to be true for > images in general, so the messages should remain dire > > Given that, it is not unusual to make the user confirm that > overriding the modules is OK. > > manoj > -- > Finster's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet. > Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> > 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C > > ---------- > > From: Frank Küster <fr...@debian.org> > Subject: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686: Debconf question should be reworded, or > upgrade mechanism made more clever > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> > Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:36:48 +0200 > > Package: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686 > Version: 2.6.16-13bpo1 > Severity: important > > I have linux-image-2.6-686 installed, so that I automatically get new > versions of 2.6.16 (in fact this is a sarge system with backports from > backports.org, but that probably does not matter at all). > > I'm also routinely running 2.6.16, and while upgrading from 2.6.16-1-686 > to 2.6.16-2-686 I got a warning message that it would be very dangerous > to proceed, since the machine might become unbootable and all that. > > I'm not sure which template that was; I can't find it in the plethora of > debconf questions below. I've found one that talked about "permission > to remove /lib/modules/...", but this one I did *not* see. > > I think there are several things wrong with that. > > First of all, I have a couple of other kernels installed and configured > in menu.list (lilo is not installed); isn't it possible to detect that > and make the message a little less alarming? > > Second, I think a standard install of sarge, and probably etch as well, > will only have one kernel image installed. Doesn't this mean that each > time a kernel is upgraded (e.g. via security updates), users will get > that message? I think we should take great effort to avoid this, and > instead provide a clean upgrade procedure. For example by delaying > parts of the configuration to the next reboot. > > Regards, Frank > > > > -- System Information: > Debian Release: 3.1 > APT prefers unstable > APT policy: (99, 'unstable') > Architecture: i386 (i686) > Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686 > Locale: lang=de...@euro, lc_ctype=de...@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15) > > Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.16-2-686 depends on: > ii module-init-tools 3.2.2-1bpo1 tools for managing Linux kernel > mo > ii yaird [linux-initramfs-tool 0.0.12-8bpo1 Yet Another mkInitRD > > -- debconf information: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-system-map-link-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/failed-to-move-modules-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/overwriting-modules-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/create-kimage-link-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/prerm/removing-running-kernel-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/depmod-error-2.6.16-2-686: false > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/abort-install-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/bootloader-error-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/kimage-is-a-directory: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/abort-overwrite-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/prerm/would-invalidate-boot-loader-2.6.16-2-686: > true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/already-running-this-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/elilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/initrd-2.6.16-2-686: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686: true > * linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/lilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: false > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/lilo-has-ramdisk: > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/bootloader-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-dir-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686: true > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/depmod-error-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: false > linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/bootloader-test-error-2.6.16-2-686: -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
