Hi Sam On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:31:57AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > I still think it would help if you would work more on articulating what > problem you are trying to solve with the linux-headers versioning > change. I have read multiple versions of this proposal, and your > follow-ups, and I still do not understand what is prompting the > linux-headers change.
The core problem is that people assume they can get headers matching the currently running kernel, without upgrading first, see also the parallel thread. Or freak out because meta packages remain uninstallable in backports for days. With this plan you can only get the correct ones by using something I think like: | apt satisfy 'linux-headers (= $(uname -r))' There is somewhere again a maybe possible plan to get meta packages in place that actually support the case of always providing the headers to the installed (not running!) kernel. Then we need to use the same versioning anyway again. In the end I don't really care, but we need then a way to fix the version skew between the different source package for the kernel. Aka either redo larger parts of the linux package (which can never fix it completely), plus gcc or we change how backports works. > My intuition mirrors others in the conversation that it is problematic > to support multiple kernel versions without also supporting multiple > header versions. Usually you try to guard against one error. Noone claimed that we can't work with one error. All the other conversations already have to argue with two errors at the same time. When should we stop then? Regards, Bastian -- Deflector shields just came on, Captain.
