Just CC now both bug reports, although the difference between grub2's
and grub-legacy's update-grub should be handled differently.
Am Donnerstag, den 07.08.2008, 13:10 -0300 schrieb Henrique de Moraes
Holschuh:
I was about unsure if I should use 'lt' 'le' 'le-nl' or 'lt-nl'
You want to
Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 21:40 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
The grub2 packages have only one update-grub the one in /usr/sbin
Ok and a update-grub2 which exec's update-grub but it's in /usr/sbin
too.
Probable wasn't that clear so another try:
By switching to grub2 as default, there will
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Felix Zielcke wrote:
Just replace the CompareVersion function with this:
CompareVersions()
{
dpkg --compare-versions $1 le $2
echo $?
}
That's the minimal fix, yes.
But if you do it that way, you will lose the special casing of pre, ac,
rc and etc.
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:10:24PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Felix Zielcke wrote:
Just replace the CompareVersion function with this:
CompareVersions()
{
dpkg --compare-versions $1 le $2
echo $?
}
That's the minimal fix, yes.
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:10:24PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Felix Zielcke wrote:
Just replace the CompareVersion function with this:
CompareVersions()
{
dpkg --compare-versions $1 le $2
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
Why would you want something in /sbin to call something in /usr/s?bin ?
You need to port the algorithm.
update-grub is in /usr.
Crap. I just noticed it is just a wrapper. Why the heck is it not a
symlink, which we would notice at first glance?
Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 00:48 -0300 schrieb Henrique de Moraes
Holschuh:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
Why would you want something in /sbin to call something in /usr/s?bin ?
You need to port the algorithm.
update-grub is in /usr.
Crap. I just noticed it is
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 11:33:33PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:12:48AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
There is absolutely NO reason for a human to accept that 1.2.3.1-foo is a
LOWER version
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please could you try previous versions of update-grub (using either our SVN
or packages from http://snapshot.debian.net/) and determine when was this
problem introduced?
The change seems to be introduced in v0.97-29 since
severity 493389 wishlist
tag 493389 wontfix
thanks
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 01:37:07PM +0300, Teodor wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please could you try previous versions of update-grub (using either our SVN
or packages from
severity 493389 normal
thanks
I've written change not bug since I'm not sure it is a problem.
It is a problem, because it fails to implement the path of least surprise
for the users of the package. Even for the highly technical ones like me
(kernel developer and Debian developer).
Kernels
severity 493389 important
thanks
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:12:48AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
There is absolutely NO reason for a human to accept that 1.2.3.1-foo is a
LOWER version number than 1.2.3-foo, simply because it is not.
Okay, I must have gotten the situation wrong
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:12:48AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
There is absolutely NO reason for a human to accept that 1.2.3.1-foo is a
LOWER version number than 1.2.3-foo, simply because it is not.
Okay, I must have gotten the
Package: grub
Version: 0.97-44
Severity: important
update-grub is giving me this ordering, here:
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.14-t43
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.14.1-t43
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.13-t43
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.12-t43
which is broken. The second entry should have
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 01:27:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Package: grub
Version: 0.97-44
Severity: important
update-grub is giving me this ordering, here:
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.14-t43
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.14.1-t43
Found kernel: /vmlinuz-2.6.25.13-t43
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the ordering code has changed in a very long time. Did you
observe this behaviour in earlier versions, or is it something new?
I think this behaviour has appeared some time after the etch release.
I'm
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 12:26:46AM +0300, Teodor wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the ordering code has changed in a very long time. Did you
observe this behaviour in earlier versions, or is it something new?
I think this
17 matches
Mail list logo
