tags 593683 + moreinfo
quit
Bastian Blank wrote:
> unarchive 593683
> found 593683 2.6.32-29
> thanks
Ping. I generally trust your judgement, so I'll just ask:
- which bootloaders is the package missing Breaks for?
- have you tested the upgrade path, or would you like help
testing the upg
* Ben Hutchings [2010-09-19 20:53]:
> That leaves colo and sibyl (both mips/mipsel).
colo does not have to be called when upgrading a kernel; I cannot
remember what sibyl needs.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 15:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW,
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > (Reopening the bug out of an abundance of caution; if lenny grub really
> > > doesn't need to be added to the Breaks, please close again - but please
> > > also
BTW,
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > (Reopening the bug out of an abundance of caution; if lenny grub really
> > doesn't need to be added to the Breaks, please close again - but please also
> > let me know why, so we can write the release notes appropriately.)
>
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 08:53:07PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > grub uses a public interface. There is no need for depends in this case.
> > However if the public interface is changed, it needs to be handled
> > accordingly.
> And the public interface hasn't changed.
In my testing, I can confi
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 10:42 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 05:17:12PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 17:57 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:16 -0700, Steve
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 05:17:12PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 17:57 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:16 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > s390-tools, lilo, and elilo are the only
On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 17:57 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> reopen 593683
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:16 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > s390-tools, lilo, and elilo are the only bootloaders for which Breaks:
> > > were
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 593683
Bug #593683 {Done: Ben Hutchings } [linux-2.6] linux-2.6
- images does not conflict with pre-policy versions of bootloaders
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
593683: http://bugs.debian
reopen 593683
thanks
Hi guys,
s390-tools, lilo, and elilo are the only bootloaders for which Breaks: were
added in the recent upload. However, there are reports[1],[2] of serious
upgrade failures resulting from not upgrading grub before trying to upgrade
the kernel; and the grub in lenny definit
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:18:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:07:05PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > linux-base and linux-image-* will warn the user on upgrade if they need
> > to upgrade the bootloader package or set postinst_hook.
>
> No, they do not.
Right
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:18:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:07:05PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 12:02 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > The images have to conflict against versions of the bootloaders not
> > > supporting installation on its
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:07:05PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 12:02 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The images have to conflict against versions of the bootloaders not
> > supporting installation on its own.
> How would that help?
As always, the packages are upgraded befor
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 12:02 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.32-18
> Severity: grave
>
> The images have to conflict against versions of the bootloaders not
> supporting installation on its own.
How would that help? It's likely to cause the bootloader to be removed
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-18
Severity: grave
The images have to conflict against versions of the bootloaders not
supporting installation on its own.
Bastian
--
Violence in reality is quite different from theory.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4
--
To U
15 matches
Mail list logo
