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
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
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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com 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 Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me 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 Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me 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 12:07 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me 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 08/02/11 12:52, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersent...@jklm.no wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risingeranth...@xtfx.me 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.
[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
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi guys, please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. signoff x86_64 -t
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 2011/8/1 Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com 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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi guys, please signoff 3.0 series for both arches. Signoff both.
