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
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [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
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 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 Langasek
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 confirm
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.)
I
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
let me
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 593683
Bug #593683 {Done: Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk} [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:
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
added in
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
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, I
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
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.
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 before the
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 own.
15 matches
Mail list logo
