Ian Campbell wrote:
> Earlier, Justin wrote:
>> Mind you, how does this interact with the requirement in the generic
>> upgrade procedure for a kernel change to handle udev? Might that fix
>> it, if xen users are going to need a 2.6.32 xen kernel with extra
>> metapackaginess before they can upgrade the rest of the system?
(I've done my own upgrades by switching to a backports kernel as the
first step, but no, I see that's not the recommended route.)
[...]
> Doing the "manually install xen-linux-system-2.6-xen-{686,amd64}"
> installation step at the same stage that any manual kernel installation
> step would be done seems like the right thing to do to me.
The only natural place I can see for a cross-reference between the two
issues is at the end of 4.6.1 where it says:
If possible, it is to your advantage to upgrade the kernel package
separately from the main dist-upgrade to reduce the chances of a
temporarily non-bootable system. Note that this should only be done
after the minimal upgrade process described in Section 4.4.4,
"Minimal system upgrade".
Maybe it would be enough to add:
If you are using Xen, see also <xref linkend="xen-upgrades"/> on the
issues involved in switching to a new Xen metapackage and kernel.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
diff -ru release-notes.pristine//en/upgrading.dbk release-notes/en/upgrading.dbk
--- release-notes.pristine//en/upgrading.dbk 2011-02-02 00:55:51.752923493 +0000
+++ release-notes/en/upgrading.dbk 2011-02-02 01:00:28.213258982 +0000
@@ -1260,6 +1260,8 @@
temporarily non-bootable system.
Note that this should only be done after the
minimal upgrade process described in <xref linkend="minimal-upgrade"/>.
+If you are using Xen, see also <xref linkend="xen-upgrades"/> on the
+issues involved in switching to a new Xen metapackage and kernel.
</para>
</section>
