On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:40:46PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 12:57:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:04:01PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:38:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Also, if the user don't upgrade those, nothing major will break, apart > > > > from > > > > the fact that he has a few unused bits on his harddisk. > > > > > > > > So, i vote for simply removing them, and provide some notice of the > > > > fact and > > > > the new module build model in the release notes or something. > > > > > > Its an upgrade problem, but it doesn't affect that many users > > > (I guess). I'm happy with your idea as long as you've considered > > > the upgrade problem. > > > > Iti s an sarge -> etch upgrade problem if anything, let's remove them for > > now, > > and once we sorted out the module build issues, we can always readd them > > fori > > etch if really needed. > > What other type of upgrade issue is there?
etch->sid, etch->etch, sid->sid, random experimental snapshot or self-built->etch/sid :) > If its going to be a problem for etch we may as well cope with > it sooner or latter, it really seems to be a no brainer of > handling kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour> the wway we alreaday handle > kernel-image-2.6-<flavour> I would rather we drop it though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]