On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 12:57:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:04:01PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:38:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Also, if the user don't upgrade those, nothing major will break, apart > > > from > > > the fact that he has a few unused bits on his harddisk. > > > > > > So, i vote for simply removing them, and provide some notice of the fact > > > and > > > the new module build model in the release notes or something. > > > > Its an upgrade problem, but it doesn't affect that many users > > (I guess). I'm happy with your idea as long as you've considered > > the upgrade problem. > > Iti s an sarge -> etch upgrade problem if anything, let's remove them for now, > and once we sorted out the module build issues, we can always readd them fori > etch if really needed.
What other type of upgrade issue is there? If its going to be a problem for etch we may as well cope with it sooner or latter, it really seems to be a no brainer of handling kernel-headers-2.6-<flavour> the wway we alreaday handle kernel-image-2.6-<flavour> -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
