On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 08:04:15PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:30:54PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Sigh, could we avoid the same discussion over and over, people are not
> > supposed (we never asked it in the past, and I see no valid reason to do
> > so) to update to the last stable point release before upgrading to
> > stable+1.
> Dist-upgrade will not fail due to people still having this bug in their
> kernels, so there is no need for users to upgrade kernel _before_
> upgrading to lenny. After upgrade reboot to the new lenny kernel is
> normal procedure.
And? I think sarge needed a new apt to perform the upgrade. In this case
there may be a handfull of packages which does not work and even less
which fails during upgrade.
> > THe _BEST_ example of that are buildd's that for now run etch (even
> > some sarge not so long time ago) and have a sid chroot to build. Not
> > keeping the CLD patch means that we break our own buildd infrastructure.
I doubt that they do. Sarge had 2.4.18 for most arches and lenny will
not even think about working on them.
> This is making a mountain of a molehill. We have one amd64 and one i386
> buildd. Certainly installing a (security!) kernel update on two buildd's
> is a better solution than having old version of gcc on the two most
> used archs we have..
The updates needs to be installed anyway. It will be included in r4 and
after that in every security update.
Bastian
--
"We have the right to survive!"
"Not by killing others."
-- Deela and Kirk, "Wink of An Eye", stardate 5710.5
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
