On 22:34, Christoph Egger wrote: > hmm are we going to have a kernel without its own fuse.ko in jessie?
I don't think so. Only if perhaps this was a sid chroot on a wheezy 9.0 kernel, in which case, fuse isn't expected to work anyway? > are we going to remove 9 completely? Of course, I assumed it was going away completely; if it was staying in jessie, it should have been updated to 9.3, weeks ago. I don't expect we have the resources to support two kernels in stable again (at the same time as oldstable). We do have to support sid/jessie chroots on a wheezy 9.0 kernel (for the buildds) but they won't be using fuse. > If not maybe fuse4bsd should only be > changed to depend on either a 10 kernel This seemed like a good idea... it addresses the upgrade case so that a kfreebsd-10 kernel package definitely gets installed. But this is still not right: * until reboot, the old kernel is still running * the user can still choose to boot an older kernel, package dependencies don't consider this * on kfreebsd-i386, we'd need to install version 10+1 of either kfreebsd-image-486 | kfreebsd-image-686 | kfreebsd-image-xen but APT isn't likely to know which one is correct, because wheezy d-i didn't use that metapackage. So I'm back to thinking userland should never express dependencies on a kernel package, at all. I still think kfreebsd-10 images could Provides: + Conflicts: fuse4bsd, so that reverse-dependencies are satisfied and fuse4bsd can go away. It means fuse-using packages won't be installable in chroots but maybe that's correct. > or fuse4bsd-dkms (why is that a > recommends btw?) Don't know. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141005205716.ga21...@squeeze.pyro.eu.org
