On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:18:52PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:17:09PM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > The problem with updating the aboot package is a little bit more > > complicated:
> > It is not enough to update the aboot package alone! You must also write the > > new boot record to your HDD. So if you would add a dependency to the kernel > > image, that needs a newer aboot, it would not help: the people to make their > > systems unbootable. > I agree, and ideally the boot block would be written out with every > update of aboot. I don't feel comfortable making such a large > behavior change in etch, but I think it'd be great to see this happen > for lenny. I believe that would make us the only bootloader package in the archive to routinely make such a high-risk change at package install time. I'm not aware of any method for reliably detecting the boot device from inside the running system on alpha. I think the right change is for the kernel package to detect in preinst that a wrong boot block is installed, and bail. Unfortunately, I haven't had any time yet to work out how to detect such a wrong boot block. > For etchnhalf, I think the real benefit of this update is at > installtime. New installs w/ 2.6.24 will automatically get the updated > aboot. The case of existing 2.6.18 users updating to 2.6.24 > should be explained in the release notes - but for those who don't > read the release notes, they can still revert to their existing 2.6.18 > image. I agree. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]