I've finally snapped
in [UK Linux]
|
From: tinnews on 8 Sep 2008 15:00 Sheridan Hutchinson <Sheridan(a)shezza.org> wrote: > [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: ISO-8859-1, 32 lines --] > > Geoffrey Clements wrote: > > Looking at the list in aptitude this seem to be the case and I can > > see a binary deb for the nvidia kernel module which leads me to > > another question: I notice that the testing and unstable packages for > > the kernel are the same version at present, if I were to install the > > nvidia kernel module from unstable could a possible mismatch occur in > > the future when the unstable branch updates the kernel and its > > associated modules (including the nvidia one) but on testing the > > kernel is still an earlier version? > > Well spotted that man you are absolutely correct there could be a > problem. It depends on the actual versioned dependencies involved. > > In all likely hood if the kernel updates in unstable there probably What the *%$*)*^) hell is a "likely hood", some sort of waterproof hat that might work? The word is likelihood for heavens sake. -- Chris Green
From: Tony Houghton on 8 Sep 2008 08:03 On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:04:33 +0100 "Geoffrey Clements" <geoffrey.clementsNO(a)SPAMbaesystems.com> wrote: > Looking at the list in aptitude this seem to be the case and I can see a > binary deb for the nvidia kernel module which leads me to another question: > I notice that the testing and unstable packages for the kernel are the same > version at present, if I were to install the nvidia kernel module from > unstable could a possible mismatch occur in the future when the unstable > branch updates the kernel and its associated modules (including the nvidia > one) but on testing the kernel is still an earlier version? The binary modules depend on the kernel with the same version so if apt can't upgrade both together (along with nvidia-glx too) it will "keep back" the versions you've already got of everything necessary to keep dependencies in step. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: Geoffrey Clements on 9 Sep 2008 04:29 "Tony Houghton" <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote in message news:20080908130316.008028e7(a)realh.co.uk... > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:04:33 +0100 > "Geoffrey Clements" <geoffrey.clementsNO(a)SPAMbaesystems.com> wrote: > >> Looking at the list in aptitude this seem to be the case and I can see a >> binary deb for the nvidia kernel module which leads me to another >> question: >> I notice that the testing and unstable packages for the kernel are the >> same >> version at present, if I were to install the nvidia kernel module from >> unstable could a possible mismatch occur in the future when the unstable >> branch updates the kernel and its associated modules (including the >> nvidia >> one) but on testing the kernel is still an earlier version? > > The binary modules depend on the kernel with the same version so if apt > can't upgrade both together (along with nvidia-glx too) it will "keep > back" the versions you've already got of everything necessary to keep > dependencies in step. > Ok thanks to you and Sheridan, you've both been most helpful, so I guess the packages will be "marked" as upgradable but not actually upgraded until the kernel in testing catches up. Apologies for this but this leads to another question: In Gentoo if dependencies cannot be resolved the whole emerge session halts until you sort out why, so in this case I would either have to mask the latest kernel or bring in both kernel and kernel modules by suitable keywording. From what you have said am I right in assuming that apt is quite happy to continue upgarding other packages without upgrading the kernel module? Heck I've used Debian stable for a few years but it's always been a more-or-less vanilla install so I've never played about with apt this much before. -- Geoff
From: Tony Houghton on 9 Sep 2008 08:27 On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:29:09 +0100 "Geoffrey Clements" <geoffrey.clementsNO(a)SPAMbaesystems.com> wrote: > Apologies for this but this leads to another question: > In Gentoo if dependencies cannot be resolved the whole emerge session halts > until you sort out why, so in this case I would either have to mask the > latest kernel or bring in both kernel and kernel modules by suitable > keywording. From what you have said am I right in assuming that apt is quite > happy to continue upgarding other packages without upgrading the kernel > module? Yes. Exact behaviour depends on whether you use apt-get or aptitude I guess, and even whether you use apt-get upgrade or apt-get dist-upgrade. upgrade just upgrades the packages it can, whereas dist-upgrade will have a go at removing the packages which are blocking upgrades of others. It wouldn't remove anything as essential as the kernel you're currently using though. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: Nix on 12 Sep 2008 03:11
On 8 Sep 2008, Sheridan Hutchinson said: > Let me guess, if you saw someone fall over in the street you'd be the > kind of guy that instantly mutters 'idiot' under your breath yet > wouldn't stop to consider if they might be dyspraxic before making a > judgement? I *am* someone who falls over in the street and mutters 'idiot' under his breath. Does that count? (Well, not falls over, but stumbles and staggers as if drunk and frequently runs into doorframes.) |