network magic blocked

Scott James Remnant scott at
Mon Jan 23 14:21:48 GMT 2006

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 11:47 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:09:43PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 16:40 +0200, Jane Weideman wrote:
> > 
> > > BenC wouldn't it be a good idea to include a udev that supports the
> > > possible next version of the kernel?
> > > 
> > No, because supporting the next version would drop "mainline" support
> > for the kernel version we ship!  There's compatibility support, but I'd
> > rather we shipped with the tested stuff than the "this might work, but
> > I'm on 2.6.16 now" stuff :)
> Has anyone explained to udev upstream that we can't really continue this
> way?  It was one thing to do this kind of transition once, but we can't
> endure this every time there's a new kernel release.
It's not actually deliberate, I think they are trying to maintain
backwards compatibility for a certain subset of the feature set.  The
trouble is that they're also deprecating things as they go, and simply
that it's mostly poorly tested on older kernels.

The particular breakage for the new udev has been the removal of the
"Logical"/"Physical" Device relationships we currently use.

Eventually it will all stabilise once the kernel/userspace link has
reached "stable API" status -- that's not too far off, probably by the
time dapper+1 releases.

> > > BenC people have had lots of problems testing dapper kernels because the
> > > udev/hotplug upgrade didn't allow them to go back
> > > 
> > We don't support downgrades.
> Booting older kernels is something which has traditionally worked, and we go
> to some lengths in packaging the kernels to make this possible.
Booting an older kernel with the dapper udev should just work; obviously
you won't get any "hotplug" support though and your /dev will be the
plain-old static one underneath it.  I put a reasonable amount of effort
into making this so, not in the least so I could fallback to a pre-15
kernel if I needed to while testing <g>

Removing the dapper udev and trying to install the breezy udev+hotplug
is the problem, and is mostly caused by dpkg which will try and preserve
the removal of those packages.  It's possible with some dpkg options[0],
but not from synaptic.

> > It's a bit pointless for me to do any work on n-m if I can't test whether
> > it works or not <g>
> It's been stalled for ages, and it's now nearly too late to put into Dapper
> at all.  Canonical owns laptops with non-Atheros wireless chipsets; how
> about borrowing one?
I figure we'll have enough together next week in London that we'll be
able to once-and-for-all decide whether it's going in for dapper or not.
It'd certainly be a "nice to have", but it's not that critical -- it
doesn't do nearly as much *yet* as it claims it will be able to in the


[0] --force-confblah, etc.
Scott James Remnant
scott at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list