Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #79748
| From | Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 |
| Date | 2023-07-24 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <GV9SO-2v1i-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <GRakp-V0-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <GUCk9-2abd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: >... > We uncouple the package names and ABI. The ABI will include the > complete version, so every rebuild will change it. That's also what I meant with "It should only be impossible to make them co-installable". > The package names > can include just the upstream version, aka 6.1.1. I am not convinced about that part in all cases. > This means: > - Every module will be compatible always only with the exact version. > - External modules needs rebuilds for every update of a image package. > > We already say: You need to reboot after kernel upgrade, because the ABI > only provides compatibility from older modules to newer kernels. This > would be now enforced by complete lack of compatibility. >... It is under our control when to not rename the packages, to prevent this issue for production systems. A binNMU for a perl transition might reach testing users, but these should not be production systems. When it takes 3 attempts in *stable-pu to get the kernel to build on all release architectures, only the last one will ever reach *stable. A policy question is that it might be a good idea to rename the packages when publishing a regression update for a DSA, that's the only place I see where this problem might otherwise reach production systems. > Regards, > Bastian cu Adrian
Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-07-13 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2023-07-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-07-17 12:10 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2023-07-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-07-17 12:10 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-07-23 10:10 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2023-07-24 22:00 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-09-03 11:40 +0200
Re: Debian Kernel version and ABI in respect of #1040901 Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-09-03 11:40 +0200
csiph-web