Hi, I my case the -62 version of udev is a blessing. Its the first version of udev that I can leave completely enabled and still have a booting/ working kernel. And, yes, I do build my own kernels...
Ed Tomlinson On Wednesday 13 July 2005 14:36, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:26 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:20:44AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > > > This kind of misses the point. It's not the stability of the code, but > > > whether or not the packaging system has sufficient information about > > > dependencies for this package. > > > > It is perfectly normal for a package in unstable to have unsatisfiable > > dependencies. In fact this happens quite often ever since unstable > > exists. udev is special only in the sense that it does not depend on the > > actual kernel package (and it shouldn't) so apt/dpkg will not warn you. > > > > I absolutely agree, unstable has been like that for ages, once in a > while, a few packages have unsatisfied dependencies and after a few > days/weeks get installed when its dependence moves to unstable. > > > And btw, the latest udev will not even _install_ if you are not running > > a 2.6.12 kernel. You upgraded too early... > > > Well, it did install and it did brake my system a bit, which has never > happened since about 1999 when i first moved to unstable branch of > debian. I think there should be a warning where user can opt to choose > no and skip the installation of the package that doesn't run without the > package that is not even available for unstable branch. This way, user > can choose for himself instead of trusting the system updates (a > microsoft way of updating things). > > > > When this version of udev migrates into > > > testing it will still cause just as many problems (and for a much > > > greater number of users). > > > > There is already an RC bug filed for udev, that will keep it out from > > testing. > > > > > udev should probably declare a dependency on > > > a kernel image of version 2.6.12 or later, which would have prevented it > > > from being installed (due to unmet dependencies). > > > > No. udev should _not_ depend on any kernel pacakges. There are many > > users who build their own kernels and therefore do not have any > > kernel-image packages installed at all. udev must still work in this > > situation. > > > True, i don't think it should tie the dependence to the kernel. Way too > many people use custom build kernels and it will make them upset. I was > using custom build kernels before and only recently switched to debian > stock kernel, which pleases me in every way. > > > I think there were way too few significant breakages in unstable lately > > and new people are not used to how unstable really works (especially at > > the beginning of a new release cycle). > > > yeah, i remember switching to unstable from 2.2r1 or r2, don't remember > now. But i've spent so much time trying to fix broken packages, i've > almost regretted it. Debian is doing very good for it's packaging system > and dependencies. keep up the great job! > > > Gabor > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute > > Hungarian Academy of Sciences > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -- > Andrei > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
