On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:14:24PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:46:04AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Indeed, and the version of the metapackages doesn't include an explicit > > reference to the ABI. IMO it should, then we could do: > > Depends: linux-image-2.6-686 (>= 2.6.21-1), linux-image-2.6-686 (<< > > 2.6.21-2)
> 2.6.21-1 <= 2.6.21-1-1 <= 2.6.21-2? I doubt it. Raphaël addressed this. > And the linux-2.6 version also don't describe the abi. Indeed, but in that case the information is encoded in the package name instead; there's no reason to encode it again in the version number. > > Currently you have to lookup the changelog of linux-image-2.6-686 to know > > the ABI it corresponds to, which is somehow inconvenient. > No, the depends clearly stats which abi this is. There is no way to express that a module meta package depends on "this ABI version of module foo, and any linux-image-2.6-$flavor that depends on this ABI version of linux-image." Today, the available choices for the dependencies are: Package: foo-module-2.6-686 Depends: foo-module-2.6.21-4-686, linux-image-2.6-686 or Package: foo-module-2.6-686 Depends: foo-module-2.6.21-4-686, linux-image-2.6.21-4-686 Neither ensures that linux-image-2.6-686 and foo-module-2.6-686 are upgraded together, which is what is being asked for. This is a desirable goal, because without this constraint, users who have both packages installed may have linux-image-2.6-686 upgraded before the new version of foo-module-2.6-686 is available, rendering their system unusable on reboot. AFAICS, the best way to achieve this is to include the ABI information in the version number of the linux-image metapackage. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
