[Pkg-xen-devel] Re: [Pkg-xen-changes] r70 - trunk/xen-3.0/debian

Ralph Passgang ralph at debianbase.de
Sun Mar 5 22:11:48 UTC 2006


Am Sonntag, 5. März 2006 22:55 schrieb Bastian Blank:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:36:34PM +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 5. März 2006 18:42 schrieb Bastian Blank:
> > > I don't see a dependency against a kernel nor a check if it will boot
> > > at all (this is impossible). A valid upgrade procedure have no point
> > > where it can make the system unbootable. The same problem makes it
> > > currently impossible to do automatic kernel upgrades from sarge.
> >
> > I don't get that.
>
> What don't you get? That you can't just replace /boot/xen.gz without any
> check?

ok, but we haven't installed any files with the xen package (anymore). 
the /boot/xen.gz came with the xen-hypervisor-3.0 package. And if that was 
your problem, that would have been a one-line fix in the .install file for 
the hypervisor.

even if I think I will not get a clear answer this time: why have you removed 
the xen package?
 
> > providing kernel images is not the job of the pkg-xen group. And besides
> > that. I don't think a depenendcy for a kernel is really what we want. Of
> > course we would like to have kernel images available within the debian
> > archive, so that it's easy for the user to install a kernel, but we also
> > want that the user can compile his own kernel, so we should use a
> > dependency for a kernel at all.
>
> Yes, you can't depend on one. And anyway, a dependency won't change
> anything.
>
> Bastian

and to come back to the "cross-compile" issue:

this is one of the files that is produced by the "new" pkg-xen debian 
dir/files:

xen-hypervisor-3.0-amd64_3.0.1+hg8746-0+1_i386.deb

Again, do you really want to provide a 64bit hypervisor for the i386 arch?

--Ralph



More information about the Pkg-xen-devel mailing list