On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:15:16PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> For modules, you need to know what you are doing. Unfortunately the
> kernel developers seem to be ignorant WRT such things, "gcc" is
> hardcoded in assumption of beeing a never changing compatibility
> constant.
Perhaps you could en
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:16:27PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > >
> > I also don't understand why the gcc version is an issue. I mean, you
> > can compile a library with one version of gcc and link to it when
> > compiling a progr
#include
* Roberto C. Sanchez [Tue, Aug 30 2005, 01:06:39AM]:
> > Why?
> >
> Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new
> mod
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
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Option a) doesn't seem particularly sensible to me, btw, because the
> > "risk" is near certain...
> Incidentally, is it possible to put udev on hold, upgrade everything
> else, install a new kernel and then select udev for up
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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 t
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> > > (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> > > gc
On Aug 31, "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidentally, is it possible to put udev on hold, upgrade everything
> else, install a new kernel and then select udev for upgrade?
Everything else which does not depend on the new version of conflicts
with the old version, which will be
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> > (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> > gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new
> > modul
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:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:06:39AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > 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
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 (wh
(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
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:35:03PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:56:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The kernel is likely going to be upgraded automatically because users will
> > > be using the kernel-image-2.6-xxx packages.
> > Is that a problem for some r
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:56:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > The kernel is likely going to be upgraded automatically because users will
> > be using the kernel-image-2.6-xxx packages.
>
> Is that a problem for some reason?
>
> > So we're going to have another release with a very elabora
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:56:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:06:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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 th
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:04:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 29, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 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
On Aug 29, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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*.
> I don't understand th
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:06:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
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 who
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.
> If this really does have to happen this way, the user should be somehow
> presented w
On Monday 29 August 2005 11:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > * reboot
> > * upgrade udev
>
> This is definitively not a user-friendly procedure.
In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to put
udev on hold. Because of versioned dependencies on udev, this will
probably make
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.
On Aug 29, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > * upgrade the kernel
> > > Which breaks currently installed udev.
> > Only partially, it will work enough to allow rebooting and upgrading.
> In all cases ?
AFAIK, yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:15:22AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 325484 udev
Bug#325484: udev >= 0.060-1 and kernels >= 2.6.12
Bug reassigned from package `udev,linux-2.6' to `udev'.
> retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge->etch upgrade path
Bug#325484: udev >= 0.060-1 and kernels
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
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, especi
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
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 ke
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:54:59AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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.
Well, badly worded maybe :), but i think your RC bug on the kernel without
prior d
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 ke
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 i
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
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
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 ke
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 attribute
38 matches
Mail list logo
