On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:29:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > tags 609300 +patch
> > thanks
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >...
> > > This is wrong on so many levels.
> > > 1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
> See http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=linux-image-2.6.39-2 for
> the kernel you'd have to depend on only to cover 2.6.39 and not all
> future kernels with all then valid featuresets.
You'd actually need to conflict with all older kernels, since
a dependency would force the installation of a kernel image
(which is not mandatory with self-compiled kernels).
> And note that a machine having installed 2.6.39 but runs 2.6.32
> satisfies that Depends. So you need a runtime check.
> ($(uname -r) >= 2.6.39)
>...
That's clear, and it is clear that the kernel is a special case you
cannot handle completely through dependencies.
Still it's strange that there's no "Provides: linux-image-2.6.39"
other packages could use for forcing an upgrade of the installed
kernel image.
> Best regards
> Uwe
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
