Crash while upgrading kernel & stable releases

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:12:03PM +0200, Markus Kolb wrote:

> The modules can be compiled before reboot for the kernel used after
> reboot. 
> You won't do a safer kernel replace because there is more work to be
> done? You don't even think about a better solution?

I don't know why you are being hostile about this.  It seems as if you
haven't thoroughly researched the issues involved, and I am trying to
provide you with better information.

> > No, that is not right.  The files are all unpacked to <filename>.dpkg-new,
> > and then, when unpacking is complete, they are all renamed into place.  Each
> > rename is atomic, and because the old and new kernels are compatible, even
> > if the system has a mixture of old and new files, this is generally not
> > catastrophic, and the system will still boot.
> 
> Is it done different in Debian and Ubuntu? I've at the moment only a Sid
> Laptop to have a look. Here there is no dpkg-new.

> Also there was a problem on upgrade or this discussion wouldn't be. What
> do you say about it?

I say investigate the bug and report it to Bugzilla so that it can be fixed,
rather than proposing that we re-engineer the kernel packaging system.

> I propose something, I think it would improve it. Of course you can talk
> about, rethink and improve it even further. It's only a suggestion.  I
> don't see a real problem, only selfmade problem.  It should not be a ready
> solution. A solution would be an useable implementation.

Part of the process of refining such an idea is identifying the problems
with it, and proposing alternate solutions, which is what I have been doing
for you.  If you're going to propose an idea, especially one which you
expect someone else to implement, you need to be prepared to accept
criticism and consider that your solution might not be the best one.

Some guidelines:

- Simpler is almost always better
- The problem should be fixed close to where it exists if possible, rather
  than disturbing distant parts of the infrastructure
- 

These sometimes conflict with each other, but are good design principles to
keep in mind.

> It's very difficult to bring in changes like this to distibutions like
> yours. I don't know why. It's again like the suggestion I've made years
> ago for Debian to introduce different runlevels. It was blocked. Now it is
> again published in Debian Weekly News on a wish-list for Etch. Very funny.
> Do you really think about what people write you?

It is not appropriate to blame Ubuntu for your experience with Debian.  It
would be better to consider them as quite separate organizations, because
they are, despite a common heritage.

Many of the features that we are working on right now are the result of
ideas which were gleaned from the user community.  A number of users
attended our last development conference and helped us to refine them.
The result is a set of concrete, detailed specifications found here:

http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BreezyGoals

which provide a common frame of reference for implementing the work.

Part of the process of creating such a specification is to consider
different solutions, their advantages and disadvantages, and determine which
are workable, and ultimately which single solution is best.

You cannot expect to post a message to a development mailing list with an
idea, and have developers start writing it.  This isn't a free development
service; it's a community-driven open source project, and that means
discussion and critique.

-- 
 - mdz