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 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 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 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 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 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.
FYI. I thought this would end up on d-kernel, but only saw afterwards that
horms had reassigned the bug to udev :-)
I fully agree with his assessment: this is no way to do upgrades.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Bug#325484: udev >= 0.060-1 and kernels >= 2.6.1
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
