On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 03:29, David Woodhouse wrote: > You seem to want to keep real bugs which bite sane users because fixing > them might bring theoretical bugs which bite stupid users. Don't be silly. I made it very clear that every effort is made to see that these kinds of bugs don't happen. A non-bootable upgraded system is just as much a bug as a non-bootable installed system and should most definitely be fixed. And, unfortunately, it is very likely becoming a world where there are more 'stupid' (but let's call them 'non-technical' for the sake of this discussion ;-)) users than there are sane users. I would hypothesize that just a few so-called theoretical bugs will turn into many bug reports/complaints in the hands of the majority 'non-technical' user base. Sane users, on the other hand, can usually dig themselves out of these problems. They'll complain, too, and report the bug, but most of the sane users out there a willing to do a lot more to help identify and fix the problem. But I challenge your characterization above that, in the *general* case (i.e.: not this specific case), this is a 'real bugs that bite sane users' vs. 'theoretical bugs that bite stupid users' issue. The bugs you refer to that may bite sane users aren't any less theoretical than the so-called theoretical bugs that may bite stupid users. What I mean is that prior to a bug being found, whether it's an unbootable upgraded system or an old kernel left behind wreaking some havoc on a user's system, their is no way to know which one is going to cause more damage, or happen most often. I wouldn't be surprised if an old kernel could cause *more* problems than an unbootable system, given that there are usually ways to recover an unbootable system with a rescue disk. A specific example...well, not extremely specific as don't have dirty details...that I remember is one regarding some system call changes with respect to e2fsprogs. There were warnings about using the wrong version of e2fsprogs with the wrong kernel. I don't have the details, but it's probably in the e2fsprogs changelog somewhere. I can dig it up if you'd like. > Does firstboot run after an upgrade, btw? Good point. I don't believe it is. But that was only one example. I offer the e2fsprogs example above as a substitute ;-) But I will confirm it, if not to post here, at least for my own satisfaction. Even if I have those details wrong, that *kind* of problem is a real possibility. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
