Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony DeRobertis on Tuesday 21 Mar 2006 06:34 wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: Now, there was a known issue with those cards with e1000 driver upto kernel 2.6.11, IIRC. Hmmm, and 2.6.12 panics (bug #327355 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) when I try and use the tape drive on my machine. New versions not only fix bugs, but introduce new ones, too. [PS: Which e1000 bug are you referring to?] RH and SLES backport and patch what they release along with security support. They don't ship new kernels just for a bug. Thanks, Ritesh - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Necessity is the mother of invention. Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEIEG/4Rhi6gTxMLwRAjURAKCJFEeH5pefP96HBP8iZyKmSa2jHACgmTdH NxvNzAmofrUcsYAHyXafrqw= =iC// -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 02:09, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware So my question is: I discovered it today. But there might have been many Debian Users who might have discovered this issue earlier. What choice are they given ? Is the choice: Wait till etch gets released ? RHEL and SLES do a damn good job of Hardware Bug Fixing and Feature Enhancement for the software they ship. Why can't we do it ? Is it just because our policy doesn't allow it ? Can't we revise the policy ? Thanks, Ritesh There was spoken at sarge's release that there would be kernel updates on him. This would be a good thing, even if older got not supported, because if you upgrade to a new securiy kernel update, why not to a new kernel? That is what dcc is trying to do, and what i think is wourth of. (sorry my bad english) Also, this could be happening inside volatile, but it seems not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 00:08, Adrian von Bidder wrote: On Saturday 18 March 2006 17:32, Roland Mas wrote: Thaddeus H. Black, 2006-03-18 16:00:11 +0100 : It appears that to have a Enterprise Grade Debian Distribution, we need a SPOC [ed.: Single Point of Contact?] team which can address Enterprise demands quickly. Yeah, and its members should have pointy ears and a puzzled raised eyebrow. Nah, a fancy letterhead, a certfied logo program and very high fees should suffice. You guys are good at making fun. But is that all ?? Forgive me if I've not done my homework but IMO Debian Policy sucks. I had installed Debian Sarge at one of my client's location. The machine serves as a NAT and does Web Content Filtering. The machine has Intel 1000MT NIC. Now, there was a known issue with those cards with e1000 driver upto kernel 2.6.11, IIRC. Sarge shipped with 2.6.8. Now the Debian policy says _only_ security updates are allowed to Debian Stable. Fixes like Feature Enhancement of Hardware Bug Fix aren't part of Debian Stable. So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? I ended up going with point number 2. But really, next time I might think of another distribution before deployment. Thanks, Ritesh -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Necessity is the mother of invention. Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. pgpxvx92MDTJI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
e1000 support in Debian [Was: Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:39:45PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware If this is the issue I think it is, sarge does support the hardware but the kernel isn't configured to support large frames on it in GigE mode. I'm not aware that this issue has been resolved yet in the kernels for etch either; the issue had earlier been clouded by concerns over the reliability of this kernel configure option, owing to confusion with a similarly named option for a different card. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 02:09, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware So my question is: I discovered it today. But there might have been many Debian Users who might have discovered this issue earlier. What choice are they given ? Is the choice: Wait till etch gets released ? RHEL and SLES do a damn good job of Hardware Bug Fixing and Feature Enhancement for the software they ship. Why can't we do it ? Is it just because our policy doesn't allow it ? Can't we revise the policy ? Thanks, Ritesh -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Necessity is the mother of invention. Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. pgpi1LEuZDQ7c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On Mar 20, Ritesh Raj Sarraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: If you need a distribution which supports modern hardware, then you should switch to Ubuntu. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 02:09, Joey Hess wrote: 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware But there might have been many Debian Users who might have discovered this issue earlier. What choice are they given ? They could have used an Etch nightly, or any number of other methods to get a kernel that supports their hardware running... it's not all that difficult to do.[1] [And if it's a problem, there are consultants available to do it for you.] Why can't we do it? Want to release faster? There are RC bugs that need patches, and transitions that need planning. Want to make sure that the next release supports your hardware? Help test your hardware with the newest d-i nightlies and assist the d-i team. Don Armstrong 1: I suppose it may be considered cheating for any of us to declare that something is easy to do when we can just do an install using debootstrap... -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
* Ritesh Raj Sarraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060320 22:14]: RHEL and SLES do a damn good job of Hardware Bug Fixing and Feature Enhancement for the software they ship. Why can't we do it ? Is it just because our policy doesn't allow it ? Can't we revise the policy ? Of course policies can be revisited. Stable could also be abolished and only unstable be shipped, if that gets decided. Fixes to stable releases are always tricky as they are supposed to be stable. Important bugs fixes are always a good goal, but they always have to be balanced against possible unintended damages any change can have. I haven't looked at this case, but in the general case possibly suddenly no longer supporting something that was supported before in that stable release is much worse than not adding support for new cases, as things that worked are likely to be in production new, things that did not work are annoying and sad, but only annoying and not hurting people relying on a something advertised as stable keeping stable. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:43:38 +0530, Ritesh wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 02:09, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware So my question is: I discovered it today. But there might have been many Debian Users who might have discovered this issue earlier. What choice are they given ? Is the choice: Wait till etch gets released ? RHEL and SLES do a damn good job of Hardware Bug Fixing and Feature Enhancement for the software they ship. Why can't we do it ? Is it just because our policy doesn't allow it ? Can't we revise the policy ? ..we can't? I (not yet a DD) thought this was a simple case of 6) Somebody Volonteer Patches! ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: e1000 support in Debian [Was: Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]]
On 3/20/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:39:45PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware If this is the issue I think it is, sarge does support the hardware but the kernel isn't configured to support large frames on it in GigE mode. I'm not aware that this issue has been resolved yet in the kernels for etch either; the issue had earlier been clouded by concerns over the reliability of this kernel configure option, owing to confusion with a similarly named option for a different card. Would that really be *the* issue for a NAT box?
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
On 20 Mar 2006, Ritesh Raj Sarraf said this: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) Set up a site for backports where people can go to. You know, you don't have to be a DD to do that. I ended up going with point number 2. But really, next time I might think of another distribution before deployment. That is always a wise move -- you should always see what fits you best. No distribution is for everyone. manoj -- It shall be unlawful for any suspicious person to be within the municipality. Local ordinance, Euclid Ohio Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: e1000 support in Debian [Was: Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]]
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:01:28AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 3/20/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:39:45PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases: 1) Intel 1000MT NIC sucks, throw it away ? 2) Unh! Why don't you change to Debian Unstable ? 3) Buddy! We are all volunteers. Go and roll your own kernel with the patches ? 4) Wait! That hardware isn't officially supported by us. Build only machines which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware If this is the issue I think it is, sarge does support the hardware but the kernel isn't configured to support large frames on it in GigE mode. I'm not aware that this issue has been resolved yet in the kernels for etch either; the issue had earlier been clouded by concerns over the reliability of this kernel configure option, owing to confusion with a similarly named option for a different card. Would that really be *the* issue for a NAT box? No, probably not. I guess this is about some unrelated issue specific to a particular e1000 model. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: Now, there was a known issue with those cards with e1000 driver upto kernel 2.6.11, IIRC. Hmmm, and 2.6.12 panics (bug #327355 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) when I try and use the tape drive on my machine. New versions not only fix bugs, but introduce new ones, too. [PS: Which e1000 bug are you referring to?] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
* Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-20 20:04]: Hmmm, and 2.6.12 panics (bug #327355 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) when I try and use the tape drive on my machine. New versions not only Anthony, do you still see this bug with 2.6.15 or (better yet) 2.6.16? (will be uploaded tomorrow). -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
UBUNTU realy works, and is stable. I've instaled it on a few servers now, and i'm quite happy with it.but my question is. Why don't you just build your own kernel from source. download the vannilla souces and do it. it's not that hard on debian. it's easier on gentoo, but in debian it's almost equaly easy why don't you try .:)Since debian is build thru volunteer, why don't you contribute whith something... build your kernel, build it with lot's of options and post the .deb on a website. help yourself an help debian at the same timeRUI SILVAOn 3/20/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Mar 20, Ritesh Raj Sarraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what do you people suggest in such cases:If you need a distribution which supports modern hardware, then youshould switch to Ubuntu. --ciao,Marco-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQFEHyW1FGfw2OHuP7ERAvvEAJ0aDMtkykFLxxp1UO8QLjMtzS0keQCfanpLrelsQMj37tIRTHXqqXnPQfk==zRQu -END PGP SIGNATURE--- Rui SilvaPowered by Gentoo Linux under :CELERON 1000 - Stage1 install with nptlPentium M 1800GHz - Stage1 install with NPTL http://rukinhas.no-ip.org
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
* Rui Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-21 01:02]: Since debian is build thru volunteer, why don't you contribute whith something... FWIW, kmuto-san has prepated sarge d-i images with a modern kernel: http://kmuto.jp/b.cgi/debian/d-i-2615.htm And backports.org has modern kernels for sarge. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
Martin Michlmayr wrote: Anthony, do you still see this bug with 2.6.15 or (better yet) 2.6.16? (will be uploaded tomorrow). 2.6.15, yes. I'll check 2.6.16 when it hits unstable (I'm guessing, though I still need to test, that the ide-tape cleanup in 2.6.9 borked it) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate prepared questions list [Debian Policy Sucks]
(dropping -curiosathe raised issue is a real issue) which are known to work with Debian Stable? 5) etch beta 2 was released last week with support for your hardware I'm not sure that many people are seriously considering an etch beta to install as a client's firewall solution. The guarantee bringed by the work on stable is still recognized as one of Debian's most strong arguments. So are the (sometimes overestimated?) good work on security updates for stablethis is easy to sell to clients. Despite the excellent work on testing security (hint hint), I'm not sure that recommending testing would be something I would do if I were a Debian consultant. PS: I hope that everyone has noticed the nice formulation of Joey. He said etch beta 2 and not etch installer beta 2 and I know he did this on purpose..:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
