On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:15:16PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> For modules, you need to know what you are doing. Unfortunately the
> kernel developers seem to be ignorant WRT such things, "gcc" is
> hardcoded in assumption of beeing a never changing compatibility
> constant.
Perhaps you could en
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:16:27PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > >
> > I also don't understand why the gcc version is an issue. I mean, you
> > can compile a library with one version of gcc and link to it when
> > compiling a progr
#include
* Roberto C. Sanchez [Tue, Aug 30 2005, 01:06:39AM]:
> > Why?
> >
> Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new
> mod
On Aug 31, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is where these threads usually end...
> With one of your terse one-liners?
With none of the complainers actually being useful to provide a better
solution.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Option a) doesn't seem particularly sensible to me, btw, because the
> > "risk" is near certain...
> Incidentally, is it possible to put udev on hold, upgrade everything
> else, install a new kernel and then select udev for up
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 31, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you aren't
> > satisfied with the current solution, the answer is to figure out a
> > better one rather than lamenting that no one else has. (I do have a
> This is where t
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:23:02PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> > > (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> > > gc
On Aug 31, "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidentally, is it possible to put udev on hold, upgrade everything
> else, install a new kernel and then select udev for upgrade?
Everything else which does not depend on the new version of conflicts
with the old version, which will be
Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that it warrants documenting, though I also suspect
that most users running self-compiled 2.6 kernels are going to be
running something a bit newer than 2.6.8 anyway.
Exactly. As long as I didn't need such fresh features like vserver 2.0
or the latest v4l snapsho
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3
> > (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have
> > gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new
> > modul
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:06:39AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > 1) upgrade your kernel
> > > > 2) dist-upgrade
> > > > That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me? And if people choose not to
> > > > read, well, they get
On Aug 31, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you aren't
> satisfied with the current solution, the answer is to figure out a
> better one rather than lamenting that no one else has. (I do have a
This is where these threads usually end...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 11:48:17PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> (pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way)
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade
> > > procedure in the release notes (wh
(pruning CC list; AFAIK all will still get the message this way)
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So we're going to have another release with a very elaborate upgrade
> > procedure in the release notes (which a lot of users, especially
> > desktop users, don't read anyway
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 1) upgrade your kernel
> > > 2) dist-upgrade
>
> > > That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me? And if people choose not to
> > > read, well, they get a failure on dist-upgrade and get to figure it out
> > > for themselves, I
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:35:03PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:56:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The kernel is likely going to be upgraded automatically because users will
> > > be using the kernel-image-2.6-xxx packages.
> > Is that a problem for some r
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:56:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > The kernel is likely going to be upgraded automatically because users will
> > be using the kernel-image-2.6-xxx packages.
>
> Is that a problem for some reason?
>
> > So we're going to have another release with a very elabora
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:56:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:06:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Requiring that users reboot to 2.6.12 before installing the new version
> > of udev from etch *is* a valid upgrade path. There were similar upgrade
> > path choices th
On Monday 29 August 2005 12:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 29, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to
> > put udev on hold.
>
> No, if the kernel has not been upgraded yet then preinst will fail.
Hmm. Won't that fail the who
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> reassign 325484 udev
> retitle 325484 udev lacks sarge->etch upgrade path
> thanks
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:46:49AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > udev >= 0.060-1 and kernels >= 2.6.12 should enter testing at the same
> > time.
On Aug 29, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to put
> udev on hold.
No, if the kernel has not been upgraded yet then preinst will fail.
> If this really does have to happen this way, the user should be somehow
> presented w
On Monday 29 August 2005 11:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > * reboot
> > * upgrade udev
>
> This is definitively not a user-friendly procedure.
In effect this means that any user having udev installed will have to put
udev on hold. Because of versioned dependencies on udev, this will
probably make
22 matches
Mail list logo
