Re: Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 31, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is where these threads usually end... With one of your terse one-liners? With none of the complainers actually being useful to provide a better solution. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
(pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way) On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote: So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade procedure in the release notes (which a lot of users, especially desktop users, don't read anyway)? 1) upgrade your kernel 2) dist-upgrade That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me? And if people choose not to read, well, they get a failure on dist-upgrade and get to figure it out for themselves, I guess. Yeah, and that IMHO is exactly the problem. Debian used to be known for relatively trouble free upgrades. For the Woody-Sarge upgrade the upgrade problems (the kernel issues at least) were mostly limited to non-mainstream architectures, but now we're likely to hit 80% of Sarge desktop users. BTW, here's a first example... http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2005/08/msg01149.html (the poster works for Intel) pgpLTx0LVqXgX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 11:48:17PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: (pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way) On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote: So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade procedure in the release notes (which a lot of users, especially desktop users, don't read anyway)? 1) upgrade your kernel 2) dist-upgrade That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me? And if people choose not to read, well, they get a failure on dist-upgrade and get to figure it out for themselves, I guess. Yeah, and that IMHO is exactly the problem. Debian used to be known for relatively trouble free upgrades. For the Woody-Sarge upgrade the upgrade problems (the kernel issues at least) were mostly limited to non-mainstream architectures, but now we're likely to hit 80% of Sarge desktop users. No, failing to read the release notes for sarge and doing a blind dist-upgrade on a desktop system was also likely to rip out large swaths of packages in the process. I understand that we all want dist-upgrade to Just Work, but I don't see how complaining that the release notes contain important information that users ignore at their peril is different from complaining that the list of packages being removed on apt-get dist-upgrade contains important information that users ignore at their peril. If you aren't satisfied with the current solution, the answer is to figure out a better one rather than lamenting that no one else has. (I do have a vague idea of what this would entail, and I'm not willing to spend a month of my time on trying to make it work.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 31, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't satisfied with the current solution, the answer is to figure out a better one rather than lamenting that no one else has. (I do have a This is where these threads usually end... -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 29, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can this be resolved by some dependancies and conflicts? This is supposed to be a FAQ: packages cannot have explicit dependencies on kernel packages. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you really need to make such a mess about this ? Yes, but thank you for asking about it. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:22:59AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 29, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can this be resolved by some dependancies and conflicts? This is supposed to be a FAQ: packages cannot have explicit dependencies on kernel packages. While doing breakage things in the postinst is allowed ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: Package: udev,linux-2.6 Severity: grave udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same time. If udev is first it will refuse to be upgraded (or install but disable itself on new installs), if the kernel is first some udev rules (at least the ones referencing sysfs attributes) will not work. Monitor the situation at: http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=linux-2.6 http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=udev and close this bug when both packages will be ready to enter testing at the same time. Alsa-utils in testing currently doesn't install with udev in testing, and furthermore upgrades of udev is utherly broken. Udev installation will die when running a kernel 2.6.12, but old udev will be broken when running a 2.6.12 kernels as far as i understand, this leads to a udev created circular deadlock, which is much less than user friendly, and which should be solved in a nicer manner. MAybe you could have udev install complete when upgrading to 2.6.12/new udev, but not be activated or such. Did you really need to make such a mess about this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:04:18AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, badly worded maybe :), but i think your RC bug on the kernel without prior discussion may have been somewhat rude. It was discussed with vorlon. Vorlon is not the kernel team however. Anyway, i was expecting some explanation about the reason why this mess happened, especially in the light of you asking for help on a neater solution. I am not actually asking for help, because I have spent a large quantity of my time dealing with this and so far I believe that there are no better solutions. But I am allowing people who think they know better to propose other solutions (at the obvious risk of being flamed if they did not do their homeworks first). Thanks all the same for that much cooperation. What do you think of having two udev packages, which are parallely installable, and one would work for 2.6.12 and the other for 2.6.12 ? In any case, i belive the current situation, in that it breaks the sarge-etch It does not. The agreed transition procedure is: * upgrade the kernel Which breaks currently installed udev. * reboot * upgrade udev This is definitively not a user-friendly procedure. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was discussed with vorlon. Vorlon is not the kernel team however. But he is the one who decides when packages should or should not go in testing, which is what this bug is about. What do you think of having two udev packages, which are parallely installable, and one would work for 2.6.12 and the other for 2.6.12 ? Please *first* read the closed udev bugs about this and *then* propose solutions. * upgrade the kernel Which breaks currently installed udev. Only partially, it will work enough to allow rebooting and upgrading. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, badly worded maybe :), but i think your RC bug on the kernel without prior discussion may have been somewhat rude. It was discussed with vorlon. Anyway, i was expecting some explanation about the reason why this mess happened, especially in the light of you asking for help on a neater solution. I am not actually asking for help, because I have spent a large quantity of my time dealing with this and so far I believe that there are no better solutions. But I am allowing people who think they know better to propose other solutions (at the obvious risk of being flamed if they did not do their homeworks first). In any case, i belive the current situation, in that it breaks the sarge-etch It does not. The agreed transition procedure is: * upgrade the kernel * reboot * upgrade udev -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
reassign 325484 udev retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge-etch upgrade path thanks On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same time. You have to provide a proper sarge-etch upgrade path. This bug is the sign of lack this path. Bastian -- ... The prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other. -- Kirk, Elaan of Troyius, stardate 4372.5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: reassign 325484 udev retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge-etch upgrade path thanks On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same time. You have to provide a proper sarge-etch upgrade path. This bug is the sign of lack this path. Requiring that users reboot to 2.6.12 before installing the new version of udev from etch *is* a valid upgrade path. There were similar upgrade path choices that had to be made for woody-sarge on some archs due to kernel/glibc incompatibilities between versions; the udev upgrade path provided is not really any different than that, and unless someone can show a working implementation for udev that doesn't require this, I don't intend to second-guess Marco on this issue. Of course, we want udev 0.060 and linux-2.6 to be available at the same time in each suite, because dealing with the udev preinst failure is still disruptive -- we want users to install the kernel update *first*. This bug was opened to ensure that. Marco, since it looks like udev is going to be ready to go into testing before linux-2.6, and the breakage of new udev with old kernel is much worse than the breakage of old udev with new kernel, I think it would be a good idea to keep a bug open on udev for right now, even if the kernel maintainers object to having it listed against linux-2.6. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
On Monday 29 August 2005 12:35, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 29, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to put udev on hold. No, if the kernel has not been upgraded yet then preinst will fail. Hmm. Won't that fail the whole dist-upgrade? If this really does have to happen this way, the user should be somehow presented with instructions to do this properly during the upgrade. Sure, this can be arranged when we will be closer to the release. Great. pgp62uIuGH3AN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12
Package: udev,linux-2.6 Severity: grave udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same time. If udev is first it will refuse to be upgraded (or install but disable itself on new installs), if the kernel is first some udev rules (at least the ones referencing sysfs attributes) will not work. Monitor the situation at: http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=linux-2.6 http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=udev and close this bug when both packages will be ready to enter testing at the same time. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
