Your message dated Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:03 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#317332: 2.6.12 has been uploaded
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; 7 Jul 2005 17:59:12 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 07 10:59:12 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp040.tiscali.dk [212.54.64.106]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DqaeV-0001TI-00; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:59:12 -0700
Received: from jbj2.jbj.homelinux.com (62.79.69.37.adsl.he.tiscali.dk
[62.79.69.37])
by smtp040.tiscali.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j67Hx4pD029833;
Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:59:04 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from jbj3.jbj.homelinux.com ([10.80.80.83])
by jbj2.jbj.homelinux.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1DqaeS-0002fH-00; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:59:08 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: udev 0.060-1 NOT COMPATIBLE with ANY sarge or released kernels
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:59:08 +0200
X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[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=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
X_DEBBUGS_CC autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: udev
Version: 0.060-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
According to the NEWS entry provided in the udev 0.060-1 package itself,
this version of udev is NOT COMPATIBLE with any kernel version prior to
2.6.12.
Kernel 2.6.12 has NOT YET been packaged even in sid/unstable, making this
package upload completely useless with all current Debian kernels. Even
worse, because of the critical function performed by udev, this means that
any attempt to upgrade to this package version can be expected to break the
whole system *according to the package's own documentation* .
Furthermore, because kernel 2.6.12 or later is not included in the sarge
release, inclusion of this package version or any other udev not compatible
with the kernel versions actually in sarge will cause massive breakage to
users upgrading from sarge to etch or etch+1.
Thus no udev implementation incompatible with the 2.6.x kernels actually in
sarge can be accepted into unstable, testing, frozen or stable until etch+1
has been released. In the eventuality that etch releases as late after
sarge as sarge released after woody, this restriction could optionally be
relaxed from applying to etch+1 to etch+0. This is nothing new, it is the
general release upgrade principles followed by Debian since the 1.1 release.
I thus STRONGLY SUGGEST that this package version be removed from the
archive and a prior package version reinstated in its place. Furthermore I
would advise the ftpadmin to keep a very close eye on future uploads by this
maintainer to ensure that such deliberate breakage is not allowed to leave
the incoming queue again.
>From the chocked
Jakob
P.S. When the NEWS item in question was displayed by apt-listchanges, I
obviously abandoned the upgrade, I thus have no access to the actual
contents of the package but a NEWS item declaring the package deliberately
broken should be proof enough (at least if the upload date is not April 1).
(Irrelevant config information omitted)
-- 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 2.6.11jbj3.2.10
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
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 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.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 317332-done) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Aug 2005 12:35:13 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 01 05:35:13 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from attila.bofh.it [213.92.8.2] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1DzZVh-0003QG-00; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:35:13 -0700
Received: by attila.bofh.it (Postfix, from userid 10)
id 011265F869; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wonderland.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id CB1EE1C2BA; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:35:03 +0200
To: Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#317332: 2.6.12 has been uploaded
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr"
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-Level:
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
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Aug 01, Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco, please explain us verbosely why a package that breaks upgrades,
> leaves other packages unconfigured, and prevents installation on systems
> other than 2.6.12, is what you call 'working'.
I already did, in this bug and others like #317720, so please stop
reopening this bug unless you can propose a working solution (obviously
one which I have not rejected).
Recent posts on my blog (at http://blog.bofh.it/) may provide more
details.
--=20
ciao,
Marco
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
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)
iD8DBQFC7hb3FGfw2OHuP7ERAllhAJwOvDu+/zr0UEGa0Ju3n3L6lrzpdACdGSE4
hWnGl+E+DmoBLFQhdtH7X00=
=soes
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
