On Aug 31, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is where these threads usually end...
With one of your terse one-liners?
With none of the complainers actually being useful to provide a better
solution.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
(pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way)
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade
procedure in the release notes (which a lot of users, especially
desktop users, don't read anyway)?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 11:48:17PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
(pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way)
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade
procedure in the release notes (which a
On Aug 31, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you aren't
satisfied with the current solution, the answer is to figure out a
better one rather than lamenting that no one else has. (I do have a
This is where these threads usually end...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
On Aug 29, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can this be resolved by some dependancies and conflicts?
This is supposed to be a FAQ: packages cannot have explicit dependencies
on kernel packages.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you really need to make such a mess about this ?
Yes, but thank you for asking about it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:22:59AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 29, Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can this be resolved by some dependancies and conflicts?
This is supposed to be a FAQ: packages cannot have explicit dependencies
on kernel packages.
While doing breakage things in the
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Package: udev,linux-2.6
Severity: grave
udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same
time.
If udev is first it will refuse to be upgraded (or install but disable
itself on new installs), if the kernel is
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:04:18AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, badly worded maybe :), but i think your RC bug on the kernel without
prior discussion may have been somewhat rude.
It was discussed with vorlon.
Vorlon is not the kernel
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was discussed with vorlon.
Vorlon is not the kernel team however.
But he is the one who decides when packages should or should not go in
testing, which is what this bug is about.
What do you think of having two udev packages, which are
On Aug 29, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, badly worded maybe :), but i think your RC bug on the kernel without
prior discussion may have been somewhat rude.
It was discussed with vorlon.
Anyway, i was expecting some explanation about the reason why this mess
happened, especially
reassign 325484 udev
retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge-etch upgrade path
thanks
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same
time.
You have to provide a proper sarge-etch upgrade path. This bug is the
sign of
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
reassign 325484 udev
retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge-etch upgrade path
thanks
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same
time.
You have
On Monday 29 August 2005 12:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 29, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to
put udev on hold.
No, if the kernel has not been upgraded yet then preinst will fail.
Hmm. Won't that fail the whole
Package: udev,linux-2.6
Severity: grave
udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same
time.
If udev is first it will refuse to be upgraded (or install but disable
itself on new installs), if the kernel is first some udev rules
(at least the ones referencing sysfs
15 matches
Mail list logo
