Re: Bug#702132: unblock: linux/3.2.39-2

2013-03-05 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Ben Hutchings  (05/03/2013):
> efivars from 3.2.39-2 will fail to load against the kernel from
> 3.2.35-2.  That basically breaks installation on UEFI from amd64
> netboot.

That one is slightly annoying… I guess we could add that to the d-i
errata page and point people there when they start complaining?

(Adding -boot/-cd to the loop accordingly; hello Steve!)

> The ipv6 module (where it *is* a module, which is only some armel
> flavours) will also fail to load.

I guess we could live with that other one.

> I'm unclear on whether it's possible to let debs migrate without
> udebs, but if you could do that it would probably be best for now.

[ adsb] not via britney, no

Not delaying linux migration looks like a worthwhile goal, so…
breaking bits of netboot might be a necessary evil.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Bug#702132: unblock: linux/3.2.39-2

2013-03-13 Thread Julien Cristau
On Tue, Mar  5, 2013 at 22:32:36 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

> Ben Hutchings  (05/03/2013):
> > efivars from 3.2.39-2 will fail to load against the kernel from
> > 3.2.35-2.  That basically breaks installation on UEFI from amd64
> > netboot.
> 
> That one is slightly annoying… I guess we could add that to the d-i
> errata page and point people there when they start complaining?
> 
> (Adding -boot/-cd to the loop accordingly; hello Steve!)
> 
> > The ipv6 module (where it *is* a module, which is only some armel
> > flavours) will also fail to load.
> 
> I guess we could live with that other one.
> 
> > I'm unclear on whether it's possible to let debs migrate without
> > udebs, but if you could do that it would probably be best for now.
> 
> [ adsb] not via britney, no
> 
> Not delaying linux migration looks like a worthwhile goal, so…
> breaking bits of netboot might be a necessary evil.
> 
Steve said go ahead on IRC, so unblocked.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature