On Friday 20 March 2009, Michal Marek wrote:
Frans Pop napsal(a):
The use case here, which I suspect is not all that uncommon, is that
I built a kernel from upstream source on a (Debian unstable) system
with the new version of depmod and then installed that kernel on a
(Debian stable)
Frans Pop napsal(a):
The use case here, which I suspect is not all that uncommon, is that I
built a kernel from upstream source on a (Debian unstable) system with
the new version of depmod and then installed that kernel on a (Debian
stable) system that has an older version of modprobe [1].
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 00:40 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
I think my 2 cents are played out by now, so I'll drop things here. Maybe
someone else will be willing to take up the batton. At least the issue is
somewhat documented now. I'll inform others in Debian that the issue
exists and fix things
On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com wrote:
Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
iirc, again on boot anyway?
Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
when the kernel is installed.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com wrote:
Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
iirc, again on boot anyway?
Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
when the
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com wrote:
Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
iirc, again on boot anyway?
Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
when the
[ adding jcm and lkml to Cc: ]
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Hmmm. I wonder if it is the old m-i-t's modprobe that is the problem when
you do:
modprobe --set-version=2.6.26.3 --ignore-install --show-depends module
Looks like that's it:
# modprobe -V
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:13 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
[ adding jcm and lkml to Cc: ]
[ You want linux-modu...@vger.kernel.org rather than LKML. I've added
the former to the CC list, we can kill LKML off the CC shortly. ]
That would mean that m-i-t has created a backwards incompatibility
(lkml dropped)
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:13 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
That would mean that m-i-t has created a backwards incompatibility
problem _with itself_ and that the problem actually is installing
a kernel, that was built on a
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:57 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Because the old modprobe does not understand the new relative (or rather
rootless) paths, aggravated by the fact that initramfs-tools does not
error out or display errors from modprobe (probably for good historic
reasons), I suddenly had
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
Yes, it was a bad idea of
mine (perhaps) to change the existing file format and I've learned
something, but it should only have affected for example that 3.4
release you're using.
Do you mean that earlier versions are not affected? Hasn't depmod
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 23:09 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
Yes, it was a bad idea of
mine (perhaps) to change the existing file format and I've learned
something, but it should only have affected for example that 3.4
release you're using.
Do you
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
[...]
I understand how and why and when it works now. I can also easily avoid
the problem now that I know about it. The question here is if the
breakage is really necessary.
I ran into the problem within days of installing the new m-i-t. I don't
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 23:58 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
I guess it's called progress ;) Sarcasm aside, if you can give me an
example of an actual real life set of users who are adversely affected
then I'll try to do something to help out. But if you're asking for old
versions of software to
On Friday 20 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
Sure, if there are very strong reasons to break things, fine. But
whenever possible the kernel has ensured backwards compatibility,
mostly only _after_ someone complained. Think of the i386 and
x86_64 symlinks after the x86 integration, think of
15 matches
Mail list logo
