On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 15:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > BTW, > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > (Reopening the bug out of an abundance of caution; if lenny grub really > > > doesn't need to be added to the Breaks, please close again - but please > > > also > > > let me know why, so we can write the release notes appropriately.) > > > I think the release notes should encourage people to update their boot > > loader first. > > Adding extra steps to the release-notes-recommended upgrade path is always a > poor substitute for having the system automatically upgrade packages for you > in the intended order. If you believe that users should be encouraged to > update their boot loader before upgrading their kernel, then please declare > this in the Breaks: for the package so that we do the right thing for *all* > users, including those who don't read the release notes; as > <http://www.bebt.de/blog/debian/archives/2010/09/19/T13_31_11/index.html> > shows, even DDs who should know better often upgrade without reading the > release notes. > > Conversely, if you disagree that there's any reason for the kernel to > declare a Breaks: against the old bootloaders, then I disagree that we > should document this in the release notes either. :)
I agree that this information should be in the Breaks field; I'm just not totally confident that this will reliably result in the right upgrade sequence. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
