Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:44:55 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#317720: udev still breaking silently
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Jul 2005 23:53:50 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 10 16:53:50 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl-212-135-219-146.dsl.easynet.co.uk (bifrost.altair.nexus)
[212.135.219.146]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DrlcL-0006Cj-00; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:53:49 -0700
Received: from mordor.altair.nexus (mordor.altair.nexus [192.168.1.64])
by bifrost.altair.nexus (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id j6ANrHs18912;
Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:53:17 +0100
Received: from sauron by mordor.altair.nexus with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1Drlbp-00012e-00; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:53:17 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mike Brodbelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: udev stops working without warning
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:53:17 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Mike Brodbelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: udev
Version: 0.062-3
Severity: important
After an apt-get upgrade, a new version of udev was installed. This
version refuses to start without a kernel version of 2.6.12 or greater.
I received no warning that this would happen, and substantial
functionality on my system no longer works. In one sense this is
trivial, as a kernel upgrade will fix it, but surely the package should
warn users that this will happen, or refuse to install unless the
running kernel is 2.6.12 or greater? Unwary users may see a lot break if
their system is depedent on udev and it gets upgraded while the system's
current kernel predates 2.6.12.
Mike.
-- Package-specific info:
-- /etc/udev/rules.d/:
/etc/udev/rules.d/:
total 4
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2005-04-24 18:58 020_permissions.rules ->
../permissions.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2005-07-02 19:22 050_hal-plugdev.rules ->
../hal.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 2005-03-16 00:59 cd-aliases.rules ->
../cd-aliases.rules
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1049 2005-03-31 01:26 local.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 2005-03-16 00:59 udev.rules -> ../udev.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2005-07-04 00:16 z50_run.rules -> ../run.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 2005-07-04 00:16 z70_hotplugd.rules ->
../hotplugd.rules
-- /sys/:
/sys/block/fd0/dev
/sys/block/hdd/dev
/sys/block/loop0/dev
/sys/block/loop1/dev
/sys/block/loop2/dev
/sys/block/loop3/dev
/sys/block/loop4/dev
/sys/block/loop5/dev
/sys/block/loop6/dev
/sys/block/loop7/dev
/sys/block/md0/dev
/sys/block/md1/dev
/sys/block/md2/dev
/sys/block/md3/dev
/sys/block/md4/dev
/sys/block/md5/dev
/sys/block/md6/dev
/sys/block/sda/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda10/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda1/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda2/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda3/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda5/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda6/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda7/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda8/dev
/sys/block/sda/sda9/dev
/sys/block/sdb/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb10/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb1/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb2/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb3/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb5/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb6/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb7/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb8/dev
/sys/block/sdb/sdb9/dev
/sys/block/sdc/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc10/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc1/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc2/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc3/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc5/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc6/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc7/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc8/dev
/sys/block/sdc/sdc9/dev
/sys/block/sdd/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd10/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd1/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd2/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd3/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd5/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd6/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd7/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd8/dev
/sys/block/sdd/sdd9/dev
/sys/block/sde/dev
/sys/block/sdf/dev
/sys/block/sdg/dev
/sys/block/sdh/dev
/sys/block/sdh/sdh1/dev
/sys/class/drm/card0/dev
/sys/class/input/mice/dev
/sys/class/input/mouse0/dev
/sys/class/misc/agpgart/dev
/sys/class/misc/psaux/dev
/sys/class/netlink/arpd/dev
/sys/class/netlink/dnrtmsg/dev
/sys/class/netlink/fwmonitor/dev
/sys/class/netlink/ip6_fw/dev
/sys/class/netlink/nflog/dev
/sys/class/netlink/route6/dev
/sys/class/netlink/route/dev
/sys/class/netlink/skip/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap0/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap10/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap11/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap12/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap13/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap14/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap15/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap1/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap2/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap3/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap4/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap5/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap6/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap7/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap8/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tap9/dev
/sys/class/netlink/tcpdiag/dev
/sys/class/netlink/usersock/dev
/sys/class/netlink/xfrm/dev
/sys/class/printer/lp0/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg0/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg1/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg2/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg3/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg4/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg5/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg6/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg7/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg8/dev
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg9/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/nst0a/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/nst0/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/nst0l/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/nst0m/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/st0a/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/st0/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/st0l/dev
/sys/class/scsi_tape/st0m/dev
/sys/class/sound/audio/dev
/sys/class/sound/controlC0/dev
/sys/class/sound/dmmidi/dev
/sys/class/sound/dsp/dev
/sys/class/sound/midiC0D0/dev
/sys/class/sound/midi/dev
/sys/class/sound/mixer/dev
/sys/class/sound/pcmC0D0c/dev
/sys/class/sound/pcmC0D0p/dev
/sys/class/sound/pcmC0D3p/dev
/sys/class/sound/seq/dev
/sys/class/sound/sequencer2/dev
/sys/class/sound/sequencer/dev
/sys/class/sound/timer/dev
-- Kernel configuration:
isapnp_init not present.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11.3
Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages udev depends on:
ii hotplug 0.0.20040329-22 Linux Hotplug Scripts
ii initscripts 2.86.ds1-1 Standard scripts needed for bootin
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libselinux1 1.24-1 SELinux shared libraries
ii makedev 2.3.1-78 creates device files in /dev
ii sed 4.1.4-2 The GNU sed stream editor
udev recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 317720-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jul 2005 22:45:04 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 12 15:45:04 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from attila.bofh.it [213.92.8.2] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DsTUu-0002Dm-00; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:45:04 -0700
Received: by attila.bofh.it (Postfix, from userid 10)
id 0346A5F805; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:45:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wonderland.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 1DC811C2DF; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:44:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:44:55 +0200
To: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#317720: udev still breaking silently
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jul 13, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> udev 0.062-4 still installs without a warning on my unstable box.
You could at least have taken the time to read the changelog entry
that closes this bug: "This will only affect upgrades from versions
earlier than 0.060."
The rationale is that if people already installed a >=3D 060 release
then there is no point in delaying the upgrade to this one.
> Oh, and please stop this madness. There aren't any 2.6.12 kernels in
> unstable, there may not be for a while, and not everyone wants to lose
Actually members of the kernel team hinted that they could be available
in a couple of days.
After fixing #317720 the situation of udev is not really different from
libaspell, unstable is not guarantee to be installable the 100% of the
time.
> time to build his own kernel. Furthermore you're severely breaking
> upgrades from sarge, and *that* won't go away with a new kernel.
A tentative upgrade strategy from sarge to etch has been designed
(first upgrade the kernel, reboot, continue with the upgrade) and will
be reviewed at the appropriate time before etch will be frozen.
As usual, the release team is being kept up-to-date.
> If you're not able to cooperate with other developers - especially the
> kernel maintainers - you should give away the maintainership of such
> critical packages. There have already been several offers for help.
I cooperate all the time with many maintainers, whose ideas and code
have been integrated in my packages and vice-versa. If you think you
have detailed ideas or code that will improve this package then feel
free to share them (but do not blame me if they do not work).
Please let me know if you have other concerns about this package.
--=20
ciao,
Marco
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1EfnFGfw2OHuP7ERAg4yAKCb1gmyn+lykdELNMpPmYla4HoXKgCaAtHI
G6zpmI2qkr+C6yrCCLjNd2g=
=PCnt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
