Am Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:07:17 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler :
> What would be the point?
Well, nothing. I have to admit that I made a small error in reasoning.
I just didn't thought about the change of the package name. ;-)
Heiko
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Bernardo Barros
wrote:
> If they have just this kernel, how they will boot the machine in order
> to fix it?
>
They can just edit the boot menu entry (Press `e' in the case of GRUB).
There're also Live CDs to rescue unbootable systems.
Thomas +1
If they have just this kernel, how they will boot the machine in order
to fix it?
On 08/06/2011 12:19 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
If you want it to be KISS, let's not provide any backward compatibility
and add an install message telling people to change their bootloader.
Excellent idea. ;)
Users are expected to read pacman's output anyway (or suffer the
consequences).
--
ca
Am 05.08.2011 22:23, schrieb Heiko Baums:
> Am Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:54:07 +0200
> schrieb Thomas Bächler :
>
>> 3) As it is now, new installations will end up with compat symlinks.
>> This is only supposed to be for updates, not for new installations.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to put it to post_up
Am Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:54:07 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler :
> 3) As it is now, new installations will end up with compat symlinks.
> This is only supposed to be for updates, not for new installations.
Wouldn't it be better to put it to post_upgrade instead of post_install?
Heiko
6 matches
Mail list logo
