On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:57:25AM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > > Upgrade went well, except for one rather big problem. If I do a > > straight "aptitude -f dist-upgrade", it removes kernel-image-* (IE, > > kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686; I didn't try a 2.4 installation->upgrade). > > Now, I understand why older kernels must be removed for etch (udev, > > etc), but this is probably a problem for the average user. For the > > release notes, I would recommend the following procedure:
> > 1. Edit sources.list > > 2. apt-get update > > 3. aptitude -f install linux-image-2.6-[arch] > > 4. dpkg --purge hotplug > > 5. reboot > > 6. aptitude -f dist-upgrade > > Installing the new kernel first means the old kernels will be removed, > > udev will be installed, only a few necessary packages are upgraded > > (libc6, etc), and a new, hopefully working kernel is installed in its > > place. The user can then reboot and verify the new kernel works before > > completely upgrading to etch. Of course, if the new kernel DOESN'T > > work, the user doesn't have anything to fall back on, but at least he > > knows early on. > This problem (automatic removal of old kernel packages) is apparently > fixed in the version of aptitude in Sid, 0.4.4-1. If this version was > allowed to pass into Etch (currently aptitude in Etch is only one > version behind Sid, at 0.4.3-1), then the release notes would only have > to say something to the effect of "Install the aptitude from Etch > *before* dist-upgrading." (The Sarge release notes contained a similar > instruction, BTW.) Wow, what? First of all, how is there anything buggy in the current aptitude removal to justify "fixing"? If the old kernel-image package is marked in aptitude as auto-installed, aptitude is *supposed* to remove it, this is a feature not a bug! (It's a feature which has non-obvious consequences to many users, but I don't believe there's any sane way to "fix" it.) Second, the bug submitter is correct, old 2.6 kernels are not usable in etch because they're incompatible with current udev. So I don't see why we should go out of our way to keep them around anyway. I'm happy to consider requests from the maintainer for a freeze exception for aptitude (if nothing else the new version seems to include a number of l10n/i18n improvements), but the rationale you've given here sounds to me like a regression, not a bugfix... -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
