On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:08:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:17:38AM +0100, Paul Brossier wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:17:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > But the package is not *in* etch, so the fact that it's uninstallable in > > > etch is not grounds for a grave bug. > > > sorry, i miss the reasonning. does the fact that this version is broken > > grounds for an open bug, or should all sid-only bugs be closed? why > > would it be a problem to have these bugs open until they are fixed? > > Uh, I thought the reasoning was rather straightforward: this bug no longer > exists in sid, and it never existed in etch. However, if the point is to > keep this bug open so the udev update doesn't reach etch before the kernel > update, then that's also reasonable.
the bug still exists in sid: the package fails installing when running anything but a kernel < 2.6.12 and upgrading from the sarge/etch version (<< 0.60). maybe udev should not run on these kernels (the init script checks the kernel too), but it should be at least be installable. the kernel check in preinst does not seem to hold anyway: e.g. one can boot a 2.6.12, install udev, and reboot on 2.6.9. cheers, piem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
