Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
Horms: With regards to pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386. I notice that pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-i386 exists and presumably works. I've CCed the maintainer, Per Olofsson for comment. Sorry for replying so late. Yes, pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386 should indeed be removed. -- Pelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:50:26AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:19:37AM +0900, Horms wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:35:47AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: (...) Thanks, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this sooner rather than later I hope so too :) With regards to pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386. I notice that pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-i386 exists and presumably works. I've CCed the maintainer, Per Olofsson for comment. Ok, either way, since 2.4.27 exists, I won't let pcmcia-modules-2.4.26 block removal. kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 Ditto -- shouldn't this one be simply superseded by packages generated by a next upload of linux-2.6? amd64 still doesn't seem to exist for linux-2.6, I'm not sure why, perhaps I am just blind or looking in the wrong place http://ftp2.jp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/ However, once it is uploaded, it will have binary packages with the same names as those previously produced by the kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 source package. Does this mean that kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 will automatically be removed, or automatically flagged for removal? Yes, if all binary packages of a give source package are 'hijacked' by another package, the source package will be automatically flagged for removal, and packages automatically flagged for removal will be removed by an ftp-team member every few days. So, no action needed, and not removing will ensure a smooth transition. Thanks, I'll prepare a fresh list for you ASAP. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
reassign 323183 ftp.debian.org thanks As requested, here is an updated list of kernel and related packages to be removed at this time. This does not include 2.6.8 and related packages. Its probably best to handle them in a separate bug once d-i no longer needs them. kernel-source-2.4.24 kernel-source-2.4.25 kernel-source-2.4.26 kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen) mol-modules-2.6.11 (mol-modules-2.6.12 is in new) This is also separate from #328325, requesting the removal of the following packages: kernel-image-2.4.27-ia64 kernel-patch-2.4.27-ia64 linux-kernel-di-ia64 -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:54:04AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:01:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Hi, I write this email to ask, now that linux-2.6 2.6.12-6 is in testing, there isn't any reason to keep those 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels around, A quick glance listed those : (...) Also, if there are 2.6.8 kernels in sid/etch still, these can be removed as well. Please see #317079, #322697 and and #323183. This report is a duplicate from what's already in those three reports, so please followup to them where appropriate. I already see a duplicate discussion on whether 2.6.8 can be removed, so please coordinate in the -kernel team about this, I mailed -kernel about it before, and there's a bug on the kernel package (#323183) about it. First up I'd like to applogise for the confusion and multiple bug reports surrounding this. The simple truth is that the legacy of the Sarge-era kernel packaging has left us with a mess, that we are trying to sift through and slowly clean up. Its turning out to be quite complicated, and thats not something that you should have been asked to worry about. I suggest that we just track this as 323183, rather than mucking around with opening and merging existing bugs. Please let me know if you would prefer a different approach. I've just spent a bit of time looking through this and here is a summary of where I beleive we are, others, please comment if this is inaccurate or incomplete. If there are ammendments I'll try and correlate them into an updated list. Already removed: kernel-image-2.6.11-s390(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.11-sparc (done in Bug #317079) kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.11 (done in Bug #317079) kernel-source-2.6.11(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha (done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-hppa(done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc (done in Bug #322697) kernel-source-2.6.10(done in Bug #322697) Ready for removal by ftpmasters kernel-source-2.4.24 kernel-source-2.4.25 kernel-source-2.4.26 kernel-image-2.6.11-alpha kernel-image-2.6.11-amd64 kernel-image-2.6.11-i386 kernel-image-2.6.11-ia64 kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen) mol-modules-2.6.11 Will be ready for removal once d-i moves from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12 kernel-image-2.6.8-alpha kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 kernel-image-2.6.8-hppa kernel-image-2.6.8-i386 kernel-image-2.6.8-ia64 kernel-image-2.6.8-m68k kernel-image-2.6.8-s390 kernel-image-2.6.8-sparc kernel-patch-2.6.8-hppa kernel-patch-2.6.8-m68k kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8 kernel-source-2.6.8 kernel-latest-2.6-i386 kernel-latest-2.6-s390 kernel-latest-2.6-sparc kernel-latest-2.6-hppa Not ready for removal kernel-latest-powerpc (needed for 2.4 and in turn d-i) -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:27:32PM +0900, Horms wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:54:04AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:01:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Hi, I write this email to ask, now that linux-2.6 2.6.12-6 is in testing, there isn't any reason to keep those 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels around, A quick glance listed those : (...) Also, if there are 2.6.8 kernels in sid/etch still, these can be removed as well. Please see #317079, #322697 and and #323183. This report is a duplicate from what's already in those three reports, so please followup to them where appropriate. I already see a duplicate discussion on whether 2.6.8 can be removed, so please coordinate in the -kernel team about this, I mailed -kernel about it before, and there's a bug on the kernel package (#323183) about it. First up I'd like to applogise for the confusion and multiple bug reports surrounding this. The simple truth is that the legacy of the Sarge-era kernel packaging has left us with a mess, that we are trying to sift through and slowly clean up. Its turning out to be quite complicated, and thats not something that you should have been asked to worry about. I suggest that we just track this as 323183, rather than mucking around with opening and merging existing bugs. Please let me know if you would prefer a different approach. I've just spent a bit of time looking through this and here is a summary of where I beleive we are, others, please comment if this is inaccurate or incomplete. If there are ammendments I'll try and correlate them into an updated list. Already removed: kernel-image-2.6.11-s390(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.11-sparc (done in Bug #317079) kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.11 (done in Bug #317079) kernel-source-2.6.11(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha (done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-hppa(done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc (done in Bug #322697) kernel-source-2.6.10(done in Bug #322697) Ready for removal by ftpmasters kernel-source-2.4.24 kernel-source-2.4.25 kernel-source-2.4.26 kernel-image-2.6.11-alpha kernel-image-2.6.11-amd64 kernel-image-2.6.11-i386 kernel-image-2.6.11-ia64 kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen) mol-modules-2.6.11 I just uploaded mol-modules-2.6.12, so once they pass NEW, mol-modules-2.6.12 can go indeed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:27:32PM +0900, Horms wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:54:04AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:01:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Hi, I write this email to ask, now that linux-2.6 2.6.12-6 is in testing, there isn't any reason to keep those 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels around, A quick glance listed those : (...) Also, if there are 2.6.8 kernels in sid/etch still, these can be removed as well. Please see #317079, #322697 and and #323183. This report is a duplicate from what's already in those three reports, so please followup to them where appropriate. I already see a duplicate discussion on whether 2.6.8 can be removed, so please coordinate in the -kernel team about this, I mailed -kernel about it before, and there's a bug on the kernel package (#323183) about it. First up I'd like to applogise for the confusion and multiple bug reports surrounding this. The simple truth is that the legacy of the Sarge-era kernel packaging has left us with a mess, that we are trying to sift through and slowly clean up. Its turning out to be quite complicated, and thats not something that you should have been asked to worry about. I understand, I suggest that we just track this as 323183, rather than mucking around with opening and merging existing bugs. Please let me know if you would prefer a different approach. No, that is fine. Having just one report makes things easiest -- though the most important thing is a clear overview of which sourcepackages are really ready to be removed and which are not yet -- an overview which you've succeeded quite well to produce. I've just spent a bit of time looking through this and here is a summary of where I beleive we are, others, please comment if this is inaccurate or incomplete. If there are ammendments I'll try and correlate them into an updated list. Already removed: kernel-image-2.6.11-s390(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.11-sparc (done in Bug #317079) kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.11 (done in Bug #317079) kernel-source-2.6.11(done in Bug #317079) kernel-image-2.6.10-alpha (done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-hppa(done in Bug #322697) kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc (done in Bug #322697) kernel-source-2.6.10(done in Bug #322697) Indeed, I removed both source packages and all of the kernel-* stuff that was broken by that removal. I did leave some 3rd-party packages around that seemed like they 'just' needed to be upgraded to 2.6.12. Ready for removal by ftpmasters kernel-source-2.4.24 kernel-source-2.4.25 kernel-source-2.4.26 Reverse-dependencies: ** pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386 has an unsatisfied build-dependency: kernel-tree-2.4.26-2 ** user-mode-linux has an unsatisfied build-dependency: kernel-source-2.4.26 I guess pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386 should be dropped too, and user-mode-linux left broken for the moment? kernel-image-2.6.11-alpha kernel-image-2.6.11-amd64 kernel-image-2.6.11-i386 kernel-image-2.6.11-ia64 All gone already ttbomk. kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa Still around, ok. kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 Ditto -- shouldn't this one be simply superseded by packages generated by a next upload of linux-2.6? fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen) mol-modules-2.6.11 Ok. After you clarified my two minor questions, could you please reassign this bug back to ftp.debian.org? I'll then remove all packages mentioned from Ready for removal by ftpmasters up until here. You can then open a new bug for the packages mentioned below when the time is there. Will be ready for removal once d-i moves from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12 (...) Not ready for removal (...) Thanks a lot, --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:35:47AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: [snip] I suggest that we just track this as 323183, rather than mucking around with opening and merging existing bugs. Please let me know if you would prefer a different approach. No, that is fine. Having just one report makes things easiest -- though the most important thing is a clear overview of which sourcepackages are really ready to be removed and which are not yet -- an overview which you've succeeded quite well to produce. Thanks, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this sooner rather than later [snip] Matt Zimmerman, the maintainer, has indicated that he is not interested in updating uml to 2.6, which in his oppinion is the only way forward. I guess the package should be orphaned or removed from the archive. But in any case it seems that it shouldn't block the removal of kernel-source-2.4.26. I have CCed Matt so he can clarify this. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=323183;msg=25 With regards to pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386. I notice that pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-i386 exists and presumably works. I've CCed the maintainer, Per Olofsson for comment. kernel-image-2.6.11-alpha kernel-image-2.6.11-amd64 kernel-image-2.6.11-i386 kernel-image-2.6.11-ia64 All gone already ttbomk. kernel-patch-2.6.10-hppa Still around, ok. kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 Ditto -- shouldn't this one be simply superseded by packages generated by a next upload of linux-2.6? amd64 still doesn't seem to exist for linux-2.6, I'm not sure why, perhaps I am just blind or looking in the wrong place http://ftp2.jp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/ However, once it is uploaded, it will have binary packages with the same names as those previously produced by the kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 source package. Does this mean that kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 will automatically be removed, or automatically flagged for removal? fai-kernels (request from Holger Levsen) mol-modules-2.6.11 Ok. After you clarified my two minor questions, could you please reassign this bug back to ftp.debian.org? I'll then remove all packages mentioned from Ready for removal by ftpmasters up until here. You can then open a new bug for the packages mentioned below when the time is there. [snip] I'll wait for some feedback from Matt and Per and do just that. Could you clarify the sistuation with regards to kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 being removed once linux-2.6 for amd64 is uploaded. Thanks -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#323183: Bug#328130: RM: please remove any remnant of 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 kernels from etch/sid
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:19:37AM +0900, Horms wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:35:47AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: (...) Thanks, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this sooner rather than later I hope so too :) With regards to pcmcia-modules-2.4.26-i386. I notice that pcmcia-modules-2.4.27-i386 exists and presumably works. I've CCed the maintainer, Per Olofsson for comment. Ok, either way, since 2.4.27 exists, I won't let pcmcia-modules-2.4.26 block removal. kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 Ditto -- shouldn't this one be simply superseded by packages generated by a next upload of linux-2.6? amd64 still doesn't seem to exist for linux-2.6, I'm not sure why, perhaps I am just blind or looking in the wrong place http://ftp2.jp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/ However, once it is uploaded, it will have binary packages with the same names as those previously produced by the kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 source package. Does this mean that kernel-latest-2.6-amd64 will automatically be removed, or automatically flagged for removal? Yes, if all binary packages of a give source package are 'hijacked' by another package, the source package will be automatically flagged for removal, and packages automatically flagged for removal will be removed by an ftp-team member every few days. So, no action needed, and not removing will ensure a smooth transition. Thanks Thanks you, --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
