On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:50:01PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 07:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 07:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > This is wrong on so many levels.
>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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 pack
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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?
1. There are many different binary packages for dif
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Why is this "sid chroot on a stable system" usecase so important?
I don't write the policies.
More to the point, what I was trying to say is that the package
manager will not help you with this. To get reasonable behavior on
what really is a common configuration, you need t
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:30:41PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > What would be the correct handling for a package whose upstream sources
> > use a userspace<->kernel interface introduced in 2.6.39?
>
> Check for -ENOSYS, print a helpful error message, and exit. And co
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> What would be the correct handling for a package whose upstream sources
> use a userspace<->kernel interface introduced in 2.6.39?
Check for -ENOSYS, print a helpful error message, and exit. And cooperate
with upstream to come up with a reasonable fallback so your package c
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:35:21PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 14:29:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
>
> You can't, and shouldn't, do that (at least until after the wheezy
> release).
Why "shouldn't"?
Wha
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 14:29:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
You can't, and shouldn't, do that (at least until after the wheezy
release).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
http://www.kraxel.org/blog/2011/07/input-1-0-released/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
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 i
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 cou
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"?
(I know that self-compiled ke
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 f
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
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.
> Upgrading the kernel without also upgrading input-utils (e.g. when
> using the version in squeeze or the version currently in testin
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
Version: 2.6.39-3
Severity: serious
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 t
17 matches
Mail list logo
