Re: I really need some help here udev/hotplug/usb/usbmount etc etc.



Bob Hauck wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:23:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@xxx> wrote:
Bob Hauck wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 05:18:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@xxx> wrote:

Look. I'm sorry, but I just typed apt-get intsall udev, and it pulled
in a version that needed a 2.6.15 kernel, and broke everything.
If you were running stable, and only stable, it would not have done
that.
It DID. I e-mail Marco, and he swore blind it wouldn't, but it did.

There is no way that something in stable would want to pull in something
from unstable or testing. That has NEVER happened to me in six years of
using Debian and I have never heard of it happening to anyone else who
didn't try to mix releases.

Mixing releses is the only way that can happen on stable. If you have
installed something from testing or unstable that has such a dependency
then apt will try to follow the chain.


The startup file explicitly checks the kernel and aborts if its lower than that.

Yes, on unstable and testing it does that because there was a change
made that was incompatible.


Search the net and you will find that this is not an isolated occurrence with this package...;-)

I don't need to search the net, I read the mailing lists. I am aware of
numerous problems of this sort with unstable and testing, but not in
stable. Since stable was released over a year ago, there is no way it
could have a dependency on something that was released in the last few
months.

I think you don't really understand the Debian scheme. It is this:

stable: Officially released. No new versions, only backports
of security fixes. Currently is "sarge", or 3.1r2. New
releases tend to take 1-3 years. The r numbers represent
rollups of security hotfixes.

testing: Development version. Will become the next "stable" at
some point. New versions of things every day, flowed
down from unstable after a certain time without serious
bug reports. This one is currently "etch".

unstable: Bleeding-edge version. New versions of things uploaded
daily, sometimes with minimal testing. Usually works
well, but sometimes weird things happen. This one is
always called "sid".

So when you say "the stable distribution", I take that to mean "sarge",
or 3.1r2 + recent security updates. That will never, ever, depend on
anything in testing or unstable. Certainly something as important as
udev having such a dependency would have been found long before now.

If you started with stable, and then performed an upgrade to unstable or
testing or installed something from one of those that you downloaded,
then you no longer have stable. You have something else, either
unstable, testing, or some kind of Frankenstein.

Note that if you go to ftp.debian.org and manually pull the latest version out of the pool directory, you will probably be getting the version from unstable, not stable. All three versions are kept in the same directory tree and there are Package.gz files that determine
what versions go with what release.


You will continue to have troubles until you get that fundamental problem straightened out.

I did. There is, or *was* till I sent an email, a brorken dependency situation on the debian stable udev package.

No, there was not. Not in stable. You must not be running stable, or
at least not a pure stable. I can believe that it was temporarily
broken in one of the others, but not in stable. This is not "touching
faith" as you put it in another post, but six years of experience on
multiple computers.

I don't know. I got an installation CD from a friend, and just followed it along. As far as I know that would always configure the system to pull from stable.

I am 99.99% certain that udev 0.093 was in stable.

It *isn't now*.

Tell me how apt-get knows what to pull from and maybe it will shed light.



Because of the way stable is released, it is impossible for it to have a
dependency on kernel 2.6.15, since that kernel was not available in June
2005 when sarge/stable was released. Yes, 3.1r2 was released in 2006,
but it was security updates only and did not include a new kernel.


Indeed. So a package with wrong dependencies was added to stable? I don't know.

If via a security update something had inadvertently come to depend on a
newer kernel, even indirectly, that would have been fixed ASAP since it
would be a serious policy violation.

In addition to that, I am in fact using udev and hotplug on a number of
Debian stable systems with kernel 2.6.8 and apt has never tried to drag
in 2.6.15 or any other kernel during an update. So, you'll forgive me
if I believe you are mistaken in your assesment.

I'm glad you got it working but I think you'll be back with a new
problem soon enough. I think I'll let someone else help you then.


All I know is I simply asked for udev, in case I had a problem with it, and, thinking that nothing that was incompatible would install took what came along.

What came along was 0.093 and it installed without a problem, it just didn't run. And broke the USB subsystem.

I have still got it on my system in .deb form, so if you want to tell me how to see what's inside it, let me know.

2006-05-30 17:17 udev_0.093-1_i386.deb

And from dpkg.log
2006-08-11 13:26:50 status unpacked udev 0.093-1
2006-08-11 13:26:50 status half-configured udev 0.093-1
2006-08-11 13:26:50 status installed udev 0.093-1

That's when the system broke..I was then running a 2.6.8 kernel.

Even if I HAD pulled it down by some mechanism I had invoked unwittingly - and I still don't know how to use apt-get to get other than what it wants to get..I had to physically FORCE a kernel upgrade to an unstable one using lower level tools.. tell me why 093 installed without error.

I am anxious to know.











.