Re: failing to upgrade udev
Thomas Hood wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:50:03 -0500, Brad Sims wrote: That kind of BS is why I stopped using $commercial_linux_distro. It's unstable I can accept broken packages due to ABI transitions but making a critical part depend on sudo-vaporware smacks of the Beast of Redmond. Why did you think Debian would be any better. In fact, Debian is worse because maintainers are sovereign. So maintainers can do whatever they want, no matter how stupid, and/or they can leave bugs unfixed for years and there is nothing that anyone else can do about it. chuckle Get ubuntu. Much less bad than raw Debian. or get windows ;-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://asia.messenger.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:50:03 -0500, Brad Sims wrote: That kind of BS is why I stopped using $commercial_linux_distro. It's unstable I can accept broken packages due to ABI transitions but making a critical part depend on sudo-vaporware smacks of the Beast of Redmond. Why did you think Debian would be any better. In fact, Debian is worse because maintainers are sovereign. So maintainers can do whatever they want, no matter how stupid, and/or they can leave bugs unfixed for years and there is nothing that anyone else can do about it. Get ubuntu. Much less bad than raw Debian. -- Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
failing to upgrade udev
I just tried to run apt-upgrade on my Debian system and i got the following error: Preparing to replace udev 0.056-3 (using .../archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb) ... udev requires a kernel = 2.6.12, upgrade aborted. dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb (--unpack): subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) RESULT=100 there were 205 packages that need to be upgraded and only udev had an error. Has anyone else seen this ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
On Jul 15 2005, Jon Roed wrote: Preparing to replace udev 0.056-3 (using .../archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb) ... The important part is this: udev requires a kernel = 2.6.12, upgrade aborted. Upgrade your kernel and everything else should work fine. Otherwise, just replace udev with the earlier version, put it on hold, and upgrade the other packages you want. Hope this helps, Rogério. -- Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:06:34 -0500, Jon Roed wrote: I just tried to run apt-upgrade on my Debian system and i got the following error: This is a feature. You can't install the new udev package unless you have a kernel of version 2.6.12 or later. -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 # Preparing to replace udev 0.056-3 # (using .../archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb) ... # udev requires a kernel = 2.6.12, upgrade aborted. rant This is a classic example of probably the only thing I dislike about Debian. The latest version of udev depends on a package that simply doesn't exist. It would be different if it still worked with the package that does exist, but it doesn't. There simply is no 2.6.12 kernel in Debian unstable at this time. If it's in experimental, then all packages that depend on it and can't use any earlier version need to stay in experimental as well. Debian is truly a great OS. But it could be much better if only this one problem could be corrected. This puts me in mind of the udf-tools package, which required pktcdvd in the kernel in order to function, but the patch was never available in Debian until it finally made it into the official kernel tree in 2.6.10. Since Sarge runs 2.6.8, this problem isn't even fixed in stable. /rant Lorenzo - -- - -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s:+ a- C+++ UL P+ L+++ E- W++ N o K- w--- O M V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5+ X+ R tv-- b++ DI-- D+ G e* h r+++ y+++ - --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC1/GBG9IpekrhBfIRAr3uAKDNA25nqJDchBQ+10Rulwau+mppLACbB3f2 TCodAiP9UScBCMdme8M9Xnw= =/up2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
Apparently, _Rogério Brito_, on 07/15/2005 12:18 PM,typed: On Jul 15 2005, Jon Roed wrote: Preparing to replace udev 0.056-3 (using .../archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb) ... The important part is this: udev requires a kernel = 2.6.12, upgrade aborted. Upgrade your kernel and everything else should work fine. The problem is, a Debian kernel package for 2.6.12 does not exit (or I am greatly mistaken). I downloaded vanilla 2.6.12 and tried compiling it. Got some problems with nv and nvidia drivers so have left it at that for now. So currently, running 2.6.11, lost udev, and after a little deliberation, starting a new clean install (incedently, the 13 July installation CD complains 2.6 kernel does not exist after booting :( , so using install24 instead, but this is beside the topic). -HS -- (Remove all underscores,if any, from my email address to get the correct one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
Lorenzo Taylor wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 # Preparing to replace udev 0.056-3 # (using .../archives/udev_0.062-4_i386.deb) ... # udev requires a kernel = 2.6.12, upgrade aborted. rant This is a classic example of probably the only thing I dislike about Debian. In such a case, you should use stable distribution. Unstable is not for everyone. It is useless to complain about instability of unstable. Unstable is meant just to be that. I have seen many people on this list encouraging people to use unstable. This would be an example why people should not advice Debian newbies to use unstable or even testing for that matter. raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi Graduate Student, MAE Cornell University http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
Lorenzo Taylor wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 kamaraju kusumanchi's comments on Re: failing to upgrade udev were as follows: # In such a case, you should use stable distribution. Unstable is not for # everyone. It is useless to complain about instability of unstable. # Unstable is meant just to be that. But later in my message I referred to the same type of instability in stable. Stable includes a package called udf-tools, which requires a kernel patch that is not available at all in Debian until kernel 2.6.10. But stable only ships with 2.6.8. This is an instability in stable. Therefore, this type of instability is not only limited to unstable and testing. Lorenzo Oops! sorry. Somehow I missed the fact you were referring to sarge when talking about udf-tools. raju -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: failing to upgrade udev
On Friday 15 July 2005 1:11 pm, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: In such a case, you should use stable distribution. Unstable is not for everyone. It is useless to complain about instability of unstable. Unstable is meant just to be that. However that is no excuse for making a dependency for a package that doesn't even exist yet. That kind of BS is why I stopped using $commercial_linux_distro. It's unstable I can accept broken packages due to ABI transitions but making a critical part depend on sudo-vaporware smacks of the Beast of Redmond. -- Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris. If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
