udev badness!
Hello to all debian users. I've recently upgraded udev to 0.62-4 and restarted my pc just to find out that apparently, udev 0.62 only works with kernels 2.6.12 and up, which is not available for debian yet. My question is shouldn't you first make sure that the kernel is available in the repository before releasing the udev upgrade? This is one of the things that might happen to gentoo users, as their updates usually brake things all over the place, especially if you don't upgrade for a month or so. But debian used to be so conservative in that sense. Has the debian upgrading policy changed? Many thanks, -- Andrei signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: udev badness!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 13.07.2005 16:32:51, Andrei Mikhailovsky a écrit : Hello to all debian users. I've recently upgraded udev to 0.62-4 and restarted my pc just to find out that apparently, udev 0.62 only works with kernels 2.6.12 and up, which is not available for debian yet. My question is shouldn't you first make sure that the kernel is available in the repository before releasing the udev upgrade? This is one of the things that might happen to gentoo users, as their updates usually brake things all over the place, especially if you don't upgrade for a month or so. But debian used to be so conservative in that sense. Has the debian upgrading policy changed? If you are using sid, you are an unstable system... Many thanks, -- Andrei J-L -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC1S6nXit3lz9m7V4RAjPqAKCiFP35Eestn1iMfNeBFam6K4aaGQCg9ImT AnFdIdRMjr6WjP3dXRVuh7s= =pX51 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: udev badness!
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: If you are using sid, you are an unstable system... unstable in the debian way of things, refers to packaging, not to the software. I did not try (yet) the new udev package, but if it does depend on kernel 2.6.12 its place should be in experimental, not unstable, until a 2.6.12 kernel makes it into unstable. I would urge the poster of the original message to file a grave (or worse) bug against udev, if he is sure of what he said. Bye Giacomo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: udev badness!
Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: Le 13.07.2005 16:32:51, Andrei Mikhailovsky a écrit : Hello to all debian users. I've recently upgraded udev to 0.62-4 and restarted my pc just to find out that apparently, udev 0.62 only works with kernels 2.6.12 and up, which is not available for debian yet. My question is shouldn't you first make sure that the kernel is available in the repository before releasing the udev upgrade? This is one of the things that might happen to gentoo users, as their updates usually brake things all over the place, especially if you don't upgrade for a month or so. But debian used to be so conservative in that sense. Has the debian upgrading policy changed? If you are using sid, you are an unstable system... This kind of misses the point. It's not the stability of the code, but whether or not the packaging system has sufficient information about dependencies for this package. When this version of udev migrates into testing it will still cause just as many problems (and for a much greater number of users). udev should probably declare a dependency on a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it from being installed (due to unmet dependencies). This is kind of sticky for folks who use stock kernels but not make-kpkg, but if the package doesn't work at all without that version of the kernel, it seems prudent. tony -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: udev badness!
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:20:44AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: This kind of misses the point. It's not the stability of the code, but whether or not the packaging system has sufficient information about dependencies for this package. It is perfectly normal for a package in unstable to have unsatisfiable dependencies. In fact this happens quite often ever since unstable exists. udev is special only in the sense that it does not depend on the actual kernel package (and it shouldn't) so apt/dpkg will not warn you. And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early... When this version of udev migrates into testing it will still cause just as many problems (and for a much greater number of users). There is already an RC bug filed for udev, that will keep it out from testing. udev should probably declare a dependency on a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it from being installed (due to unmet dependencies). No. udev should _not_ depend on any kernel pacakges. There are many users who build their own kernels and therefore do not have any kernel-image packages installed at all. udev must still work in this situation. I think there were way too few significant breakages in unstable lately and new people are not used to how unstable really works (especially at the beginning of a new release cycle). Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: udev badness!
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:26 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:20:44AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: This kind of misses the point. It's not the stability of the code, but whether or not the packaging system has sufficient information about dependencies for this package. It is perfectly normal for a package in unstable to have unsatisfiable dependencies. In fact this happens quite often ever since unstable exists. udev is special only in the sense that it does not depend on the actual kernel package (and it shouldn't) so apt/dpkg will not warn you. I absolutely agree, unstable has been like that for ages, once in a while, a few packages have unsatisfied dependencies and after a few days/weeks get installed when its dependence moves to unstable. And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early... Well, it did install and it did brake my system a bit, which has never happened since about 1999 when i first moved to unstable branch of debian. I think there should be a warning where user can opt to choose no and skip the installation of the package that doesn't run without the package that is not even available for unstable branch. This way, user can choose for himself instead of trusting the system updates (a microsoft way of updating things). When this version of udev migrates into testing it will still cause just as many problems (and for a much greater number of users). There is already an RC bug filed for udev, that will keep it out from testing. udev should probably declare a dependency on a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it from being installed (due to unmet dependencies). No. udev should _not_ depend on any kernel pacakges. There are many users who build their own kernels and therefore do not have any kernel-image packages installed at all. udev must still work in this situation. True, i don't think it should tie the dependence to the kernel. Way too many people use custom build kernels and it will make them upset. I was using custom build kernels before and only recently switched to debian stock kernel, which pleases me in every way. I think there were way too few significant breakages in unstable lately and new people are not used to how unstable really works (especially at the beginning of a new release cycle). yeah, i remember switching to unstable from 2.2r1 or r2, don't remember now. But i've spent so much time trying to fix broken packages, i've almost regretted it. Debian is doing very good for it's packaging system and dependencies. keep up the great job! Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- Andrei signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: udev badness!
Andrei Mikhailovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:26 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:20:44AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early... Well, it did install and it did brake my system a bit, which has never happened since about 1999 when i first moved to unstable branch of debian. I think there should be a warning where user can opt to choose no and skip the installation of the package that doesn't run without the package that is not even available for unstable branch. This way, user can choose for himself instead of trusting the system updates (a microsoft way of updating things). There is, it is called apt-listbugs. But even that only works if someone reported a bug already. Sometimes you are the first to notice a breakage. udev should probably declare a dependency on a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it from being installed (due to unmet dependencies). No. udev should _not_ depend on any kernel pacakges. There are many users who build their own kernels and therefore do not have any kernel-image packages installed at all. udev must still work in this situation. True, i don't think it should tie the dependence to the kernel. Way too many people use custom build kernels and it will make them upset. I was using custom build kernels before and only recently switched to debian stock kernel, which pleases me in every way. Also, having kernel-image-2.6.12-whatever installed by no means means that you are actualy running it or that you will keep running it in the future. There just isn't a way to ensure you boot a 2.6.12+ kernel. I think there were way too few significant breakages in unstable lately and new people are not used to how unstable really works (especially at the beginning of a new release cycle). It's been so long since the last release. :) MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
