On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 21:02 +0100, Jon Thackray wrote: > Well, it seems a shame to have gone from a situation where the system worked > to one where it doesn't. If you must do this, you should at least force the > user to interact with the upgrade process (ie it won't proceed until the > user makes a decision (cf the pam package for example), either to ignore the > problem because it isn't going to affect him, or to install the missing > package, or indeed to decide he can't cope with the moral dilemma of having > a 5 year old network card that has suddenly been found to depend on non-free > software, in which case he can take the card out and replace it with > something else).
Starting from 2.6.31-1, there will be a high-priority notice for missing firmware whenever you upgrade to a newer upstream version. Unless you explicitly request a non-interactive upgrade, this *will* appear. The notice appears after the package's files have been installed, at which point installation cannot be cancelled. However, since each new upstream kernel version has new package names, it does not replace the older version, which will still be installed at this point. > Can one at least hope that an unencumbered driver will be > produced in the future? [...] This seems unlikely. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
