Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
> On 08/02/2011 09:19 AM, Guillermo Leira wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > >> > > I haven't been able to make VMware Workstation 7.1.4 work with kernel 3.0-2. > > Downgraded to 3.0-1 and works again. > > > > Everything else seems to work fine. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Guillermo Leira > > > > > > > Probably since the naming changed to 3.0 instead of 3.0.0 You should > look for some patches for VMWare workstation. > > -- > Jelle van der Waa As I understand it, the differences between versions 3.0-1 and 3.0-2 should be minimal. Usually, in this type of changes there is not even necessary to recompile anything. But this time, and now again with 3.0.1-1, instead of compilation errors, I get this message: Unable to initialize module building library The log only says: [gleira@guillelinux vmware-gleira]$ cat setup-2245.log ago 07 14:55:03.105: app-140484333979392| Log for VMware Workstation pid=2245 version=7.1.4 build=build-385536 option=Release ago 07 14:55:03.105: app-140484333979392| The process is 64-bit. ago 07 14:55:03.105: app-140484333979392| Host codepage=UTF-8 encoding=UTF-8 ago 07 14:55:03.105: app-140484333979392| Logging to /tmp/vmware-gleira/setup-2245.log ago 07 14:55:03.243: app-140484333979392| Unable to initialize modconf query library I have been unable to find anything about this messages (at least, anything that helps me). Should I file a bug? Best Regards, Guillermo Leira
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On 08/02/11 12:52, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this a non-issue? We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue? sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-) kernel26-lts / linux-lts (side note -- are we renaming that package now or later?) That's our current dual kernel. It's not difficult to add back version numbers if they become really necessary - it happens here and there (e.g. python - which was obviously much more complicated because it relates to hundreds of packages rather than one or two). There might be some AUR packages with specific kernel versions - having the main package be 'linux' doesn't hurt that either.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > > Upstream > changes: > http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges > > Archlinux Changes: > - Rename the package kernel26 -> linux > - Added replaces everywhere > - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file > - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD > - added compatibility symlinks for vmlinuz26 and initramfs filenames > in PKGBUILD, in order to not break bootloader entries. > - removed System.map file, not needed anymore we provide > /proc/kallsyms > signoff x86_64. Don't forget to move lm_sensors-3.3.1-2 to extra when you'll move the kernel to core. I just patched lm_sensors to fix a kernel version bug.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
2011/8/2 Lukáš Jirkovský :
>> Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing:
>> - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux
>> - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img
>> same for fallback of course.
>>
>
> Why not use only
> - kernel name: vmlinuz
> - initramfs name: initramfs.img
> and for fallback
> - kernel name: vmlinuz-fallback
> - initramfs name: initramfs-fallback.img
This was discussed in the original thread ("linux-3.0.0-1").
-t
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
> Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing: > - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux > - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img > same for fallback of course. > Why not use only - kernel name: vmlinuz - initramfs name: initramfs.img and for fallback - kernel name: vmlinuz-fallback - initramfs name: initramfs-fallback.img Lukas
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Aug 2, 2011 6:39 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > > > > Upstream > > changes: > > http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges > > > > Archlinux Changes: > > - Rename the package kernel26 -> linux > > - Added replaces everywhere > > - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file > > - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD > > - added compatibility symlinks for vmlinuz26 and initramfs filenames > > in PKGBUILD, in order to not break bootloader entries. > > - removed System.map file, not needed anymore we provide > > /proc/kallsyms > > > > Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing: > > - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux > > - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img > > same for fallback of course. > > both look good here -- x86_64 + i686 > > -- > > ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` > package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't > around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this > a non-issue? > > C Anthony I think that nobody has kernel24 in their system, so this isn't an issue. -- Kwpolska Sent from my phone.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> meh whatever :-) i guess i don't really care anyway since i would >> never run an older one, but i thought there was a technical reason for >> the split originally ... though that reason is escaping me now >> (providing said reason even existed and im not just fabricating it). > > It may have made sense to have both kernel24 and kernel26 in the > repos, but with the new kernel development model (starting with 2.6.0) > it is not expected that we will need anything like that again. ahhh right right, i forgot about the even/odd thing -- thanks Tom. C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > meh whatever :-) i guess i don't really care anyway since i would > never run an older one, but i thought there was a technical reason for > the split originally ... though that reason is escaping me now > (providing said reason even existed and im not just fabricating it). It may have made sense to have both kernel24 and kernel26 in the repos, but with the new kernel development model (starting with 2.6.0) it is not expected that we will need anything like that again. -t
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Vic Demuzere wrote: > On Aug 2, 2011 6:53 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger > wrote: >> >> >> >> ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` >> >> package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't >> >> around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this >> >> a non-issue? >> > >> > We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue? >> >> sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support >> would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-) >> >> C Anthony > > Why would you do that for the kernel, but not for other packages? meh whatever :-) i guess i don't really care anyway since i would never run an older one, but i thought there was a technical reason for the split originally ... though that reason is escaping me now (providing said reason even existed and im not just fabricating it). C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Aug 2, 2011 6:53 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > >> > >> ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` > >> package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't > >> around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this > >> a non-issue? > > > > We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue? > > sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support > would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-) > > C Anthony Why would you do that for the kernel, but not for other packages? -- v...@demuzere.be :: http://vic.demuzere.be :: PGP: 0x6690CF94 My software never contains bugs, it just develops random features. Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> >> ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` >> package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't >> around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this >> a non-issue? > > We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue? sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-) C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` > package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't > around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this > a non-issue? We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue? -t
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > > Upstream > changes: > http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges > > Archlinux Changes: > - Rename the package kernel26 -> linux > - Added replaces everywhere > - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file > - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD > - added compatibility symlinks for vmlinuz26 and initramfs filenames > in PKGBUILD, in order to not break bootloader entries. > - removed System.map file, not needed anymore we provide > /proc/kallsyms > > Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing: > - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux > - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img > same for fallback of course. both look good here -- x86_64 + i686 -- ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26` package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package? or is this a non-issue? C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On 08/02/2011 09:19 AM, Guillermo Leira wrote: Hi guys, please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. I haven't been able to make VMware Workstation 7.1.4 work with kernel 3.0-2. Downgraded to 3.0-1 and works again. Everything else seems to work fine. Best Regards, Guillermo Leira Probably since the naming changed to 3.0 instead of 3.0.0 You should look for some patches for VMWare workstation. -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
> Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > I haven't been able to make VMware Workstation 7.1.4 work with kernel 3.0-2. Downgraded to 3.0-1 and works again. Everything else seems to work fine. Best Regards, Guillermo Leira
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
2011/8/1 Tobias Powalowski : > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. > > Upstream > changes: > http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges > > Archlinux Changes: > - Rename the package kernel26 -> linux > - Added replaces everywhere > - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file > - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD > - added compatibility symlinks for vmlinuz26 and initramfs filenames > in PKGBUILD, in order to not break bootloader entries. > - removed System.map file, not needed anymore we provide > /proc/kallsyms > > Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing: > - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux > - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img > same for fallback of course. > > greetings > tpowa > -- > Tobias Powalowski > Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) > http://www.archlinux.org > tp...@archlinux.org > > > signoff x86_64 -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. Signoff both.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On 2011/8/1 Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. Using that for some days, signof i686. -- Rémy.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
No discussion here it's been decided! > - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux > - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img > same for fallback of course. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > Hi guys, > please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. signoff x86_64 -t
[arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
Hi guys, please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. Upstream changes: http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges Archlinux Changes: - Rename the package kernel26 -> linux - Added replaces everywhere - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD - added compatibility symlinks for vmlinuz26 and initramfs filenames in PKGBUILD, in order to not break bootloader entries. - removed System.map file, not needed anymore we provide /proc/kallsyms Now stuff to discuss before uploading to testing: - kernel name: vmlinuz-linux - initramfs name: initramfs-linux.img same for fallback of course. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
