Any more bright ideas?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On May 25, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > These packages are not actually needed by udev, and again they may be
> > > unpacked in the wrong order. Next?
> i know that these packages are not needed by udev itself,
> they are going to be installed on an upgrade to a new linux-ima
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 15, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These packages are not actually needed by udev, and again they may be
> > unpacked in the wrong order. Next?
i know that these packages are not needed by udev itself,
they are going to be installe
On May 15, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These packages are not actually needed by udev, and again they may be
> unpacked in the wrong order. Next?
I am still waiting for your proposals.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On May 15, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This does not work, because if for some reason the user were not ready
> > > > to upgrade the kernel then the would have already been upgraded and
> > > > would not start again at the next reboot. Is this what you really want?
> > > d
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 12, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This does not work, because if for some reason the user were not ready
> > > to upgrade the kernel then the would have already been upgraded and
> > > would not start again at the next reboo
On May 12, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This does not work, because if for some reason the user were not ready
> > to upgrade the kernel then the would have already been upgraded and
> > would not start again at the next reboot. Is this what you really want?
> do you propose li
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:02:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 11, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > as upgrades work out if you touch that special conf file
> > i would propose to check against a version range in which
> > the sarge release falls and allow those an smooth
On May 11, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as upgrades work out if you touch that special conf file
> i would propose to check against a version range in which
> the sarge release falls and allow those an smooth upgrade
> without running kernel check.
>
> of course with a big warni
as upgrades work out if you touch that special conf file
i would propose to check against a version range in which
the sarge release falls and allow those an smooth upgrade
without running kernel check.
of course with a big warning that the user should reboot soonest.
regards
--
maks
--
To U
This should have been fixed by udev 0.085-1 and initramfs-tools 0.53, so
unless somebody will report more problems soon I will close the bug.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 08:01 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:54:33PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >
> > Okay, 0.53 is in testing now (maybe a day or two ago). But again, with
> > the new initramfs-tools unpacked (but not configured):
> >
> > Setting up udev (0.085
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:54:33PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Okay, 0.53 is in testing now (maybe a day or two ago). But again, with
> the new initramfs-tools unpacked (but not configured):
>
> Setting up udev (0.085-1) ...
> Kernel version too old. initramfs-tools requires at least 2.6
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 00:47 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > The new upgrade procedure fails on alpha, regardless of the kernel
> > workaround, there's still a udev - initramfs-tools dependency loop which
> > interrupts the udev postinst, and the
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> The new upgrade procedure fails on alpha, regardless of the kernel
> workaround, there's still a udev - initramfs-tools dependency loop which
> interrupts the udev postinst, and the failures cascade from there:
please upgrad initramfs-tools to latest
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 03, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > could you put as local workaround an set -x on top in
> > /usr/sbin/mkinitramfs, would really like to know how we got called
> > there.
> The udev postinst always runs update-initramfs -u.
in
On Mar 03, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could you put as local workaround an set -x on top in
> /usr/sbin/mkinitramfs, would really like to know how we got called
> there.
The udev postinst always runs update-initramfs -u.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital sig
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:54:08PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> The new upgrade procedure fails on alpha, regardless of the kernel
> workaround, there's still a udev - initramfs-tools dependency loop which
> interrupts the udev postinst, and the failures cascade from there:
>
> # touch /etc
On Mar 03, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kernel upgrade mode, udevd has not been restarted.
> Please reboot the system as soon as possible.
> Kernel version too old. initramfs-tools requires at least 2.6.12.
> dpkg: error processing udev (--configure):
> subprocess post-installat
Greetings,
The new upgrade procedure fails on alpha, regardless of the kernel
workaround, there's still a udev - initramfs-tools dependency loop which
interrupts the udev postinst, and the failures cascade from there:
# touch /etc/udev/kernel-upgrade
# dselect
Reading package lists... Done
Buildi
I implemented in udev 0.085-1 a first attempt to solve this problem.
It's totally untested and I will not able to test it myself soon, so
reports are appreciated.
The upgrade procedure should be something like:
# switch sources.list to testing
apt-get update
touch /etc/udev/kernel-upgrade
apt-ge
A pointer to another thread about this:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.release/browse_frm/thread/7285458be97bc622/010a417899f3f1d6#010a417899f3f1d6
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 349354 serious
Bug#349354: initramfs-tools - kernel -udev dependency loop
Severity set to `serious'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
severity 349354 serious
thanks
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:01:09PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> as discussed with vorlon this needs to be resolved soon.
as not discussed with the kernel team, this is a problem and the release
team can decide to overwrite this on there own.
Bastian
--
Ahead
severity 349354 important
stop dude
as discussed with vorlon this needs to be resolved soon.
but latest klibc in testing needs that i-t release,
so let it slip for now, or we'll break to many systems.
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 349354 critical
Bug#349354: initramfs-tools - kernel -udev dependency loop
Severity set to `critical'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
26 matches
Mail list logo
