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.
>
> "Upgrade makes another package completely unusable when not forcing an
> upgrade of that" is not RC?
Depends on the relative importance of the packages.
> > > 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 therefore add Breaks
> > > for all non-fixed versions of input-utils.
> >
> > Maybe. But first you have to make input-utils work with both the kernel
> > version in squeeze and the version in sid.
>
> A versioned build-dependency on linux-libc-dev and a breaks for older
> kernel images seems to be the minimal fix.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
2. input-utils doesn't break them! They don't depend on input-utils;
they'll keep on running.
3. You know how people complain about udev and kernel upgrade ordering
dependencies? You're proposing to do the same thing.
I suspect that the correct way to deal with this may be to build
input-utils from the linux-2.6 source package and add some sort of
wrapper in linux-base to select the right version (like we do for
perf).
Or, you change the program to check which protocol version to use at
run-time.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
