On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 07:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:50:01PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 07:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
Why not?
1. There are many different binary packages for different
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
tags 609300 +patch
thanks
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
Why not?
How could a package declare I need at least kernel 2.6.39?
(I know that self-compiled
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:29:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
tags 609300 +patch
thanks
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
Why not?
How could a package
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:29:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
tags 609300 +patch
thanks
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
...
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to
http://www.kraxel.org/blog/2011/07/input-1-0-released/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e246687.7090...@bytesex.org
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 14:29:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
How could a package declare I need at least kernel 2.6.39?
You can't, and shouldn't, do that (at least until after the wheezy
release).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:35:21PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 14:29:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
How could a package declare I need at least kernel 2.6.39?
You can't, and shouldn't, do that (at least until after the wheezy
release).
Why shouldn't?
What would be
Adrian Bunk wrote:
What would be the correct handling for a package whose upstream sources
use a userspace-kernel interface introduced in 2.6.39?
Check for -ENOSYS, print a helpful error message, and exit. And cooperate
with upstream to come up with a reasonable fallback so your package can
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:30:41PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
What would be the correct handling for a package whose upstream sources
use a userspace-kernel interface introduced in 2.6.39?
Check for -ENOSYS, print a helpful error message, and exit. And cooperate
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Why is this sid chroot on a stable system usecase so important?
I don't write the policies.
More to the point, what I was trying to say is that the package
manager will not help you with this. To get reasonable behavior on
what really is a common configuration, you need to
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
Version: 2.6.39-3
Severity: serious
Upgrading the kernel without also upgrading input-utils (e.g. when
using the version in squeeze or the version currently in testing)
makes input-utils unusable (see #609300).
After #609300 got fixed, the linux images should
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
Version: 2.6.39-3
Severity: serious
This is not RC for the kernel.
Upgrading the kernel without also upgrading input-utils (e.g. when
using the version in squeeze or the version currently in testing)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:45:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
Version: 2.6.39-3
Severity: serious
This is not RC for the kernel.
Upgrade makes another package completely unusable when not forcing
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:41:59PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:45:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
Version: 2.6.39-3
Severity: serious
This is not RC for the kernel.
17 matches
Mail list logo
