Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is > priority extra. I agree it should be included. We can change the priority so it's not automatically installed and warn people that it is experimental/might break things in dselect's description. -- Regards,| Debian GNU/ __ o http://www.debian.org . |/ / _ _ _ _ _ __ __ Randy | / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | // /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ http://www.golgotha.net | because lockups should only be for convicts.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Hi Joey and *... I have noticed something in 2.2.0* that has potential to break scripts that add net routes. If I don't include "netmask " in the route commands, it tells me "SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument". Relevent versions: basically everything is recent slink, except kernel-image-2.2.0-pre1-i586 (custom compiled; .config available upon req) netbase 3.11-1.2 -Jim
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
> priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
> 2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
> be installed by default.
That would be cheating ;)
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.orgLogiciels du soleil: -
- http://www.fr.debian.orgOpen Hardware: http://www.ldsol.com -
---
-"Microsoft est à l'informatique ce que le grumeau est à la crépe..." -
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Hi I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include 2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still be installed by default. Regards -- Robbie Murray
Re: pppd 2.3.5 (was RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink)
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide > >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. > >> > >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a > >current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image? Why have > >two packages? > > I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is > fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the > kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a > big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd > anyway! No, the kernel-2.2.0 package should not depend on the new pppd package, since it is perfectly usable without pppd for people who don't use pppd. Instead, the kernel-2.2.0 package should conflict with the old pppd package. (The real issue is not that a 2.2 kernel needs the new pppd package to work, but that it doesn't work with the old pppd package.) Remco
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people > do. ---end quoted text--- That's what dselect is for...you only download that which you are going to install. By adding the 2.2.0 kernel and or source as an extra package(s), you don't HAVE to download it. It would be there as an additional package that one could download if one chose to. Ivan -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstien -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would > > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's > > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. > I'm using nothing but packages from slink/sparc and I see no > incompatibilities. Then again the box isn't running X, any of the other > sparc devs out there have any input on which kernel provides the > 'safest' X for sparc? I haven't touched 2.0.x kernels for the last year on the Sparc platform. I don't trust them. Additionally, the 2.0.35 Debian kernel wouldn't even boot on my Sparc20 (haven't tried 2.0.36), but I've only been running Debian on that machine for about a month (I installed by hand with the 2.1.x kernel I was using for UltraPenguin). X works fine on my Sparc20 and Ultra5, but I can't speak for other systems. The Ultra 5 has run a variety of CVS kernels from about 2.1.125 to 2.2.0-pre4, and the 20 has run an even wider range of 2.1.x kernels with UP, but mostly 2.1.12x kernels with Debian. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Allan M. Wind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO). > Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing > with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived. Er.. wrong. We're not waiting for all bugs to get fixed before releasing slink, just the important ones. That said, I really wish that slink had been released some time ago, and that this discussion was about including 2.2 in the soon-to-be-released potato. [I think dpkg and X have been the two biggest problems. X seems to be under control, but we seem to still be fighting some brittleness in dpkg. [brittleness is a term I use for software which has been modified too much, so that further changes are difficult.]] -- Raul
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Brian White wrote: > Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package. Aha! Well I agree with it WRT images. -- see shy jo
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell > > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me". > > Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I > don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and installing > that source package is more difficult than pushing an elevator button (even > with kernel-package ;-) [...] > But keep in mind we're also talking about a _source_package_. Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- Donald Knuth
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 07:18:08PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > Yup. I don't have any worries about that. My small concern is people > expecting it to be supported because it came with the distribution. As > I've said, I don't have very strong convictions about a source package. As I said several messages back, a note to this effect in the package, and during the install ought to suffice to notify people that "THIS SOFTWARE IS INCLUDED AS A SERVICE TO OUR USERS, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED TO FUNCTION WITH DEBIAN" (or something like that:-) Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > > > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then > > > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential > > > > problems. > > > > > > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the > > > reasons the "extra" priority does exist. > > > > > > According to this it should be fine to include it as an "extra" package. > > > > Perhaps that is a reason for "extra", but it's really pointless. If it > > can be installed, people will install it regardless of its priority. I'd > > bet most people don't even think about a package's priority, largely > > because many don't know what the priorities mean. > > In such case (even if the user install everything, including extra > packages) I think there should be no problem if the package is a > package containing just the kernel source (because source code, as such, > is always harmless). Yup. I don't have any worries about that. My small concern is people expecting it to be supported because it came with the distribution. As I've said, I don't have very strong convictions about a source package. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was, and always will be yours. If it never returns, it was never yours to begin with.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default > > kernel > > Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles > the kernel, they will expect it to work. I think it's best to leave 2.2 > completely in unstable. It's still available there and will have better > support. What about saving some ppl some money? I take there are going to be 4 CD's for slink and I guess there are at least 40 MB free on one of them. Could we include 2.2 as a bonus there? Not visible from dselect, just a few more files on one of the CD's... -source packages maybe, so it's easy for ppl to install and deinstall them... Marcelo
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Brian White wrote: > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me". Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and installing that source package is more difficult than pushing an elevator button (even with kernel-package ;-) > Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle > and putting a "push" sign above it. The "affordance" of the handle > talks far more loudly than the sign. /usr/src/kernels-source-2.0.tar.gz Adding this file to the distribution really doesn't add a handle to the door. A better analogy would be adding a locked door with a numeric keypad. You have to go hunt in the archives (/usr/doc) to find out the conbination you need to open the door. > There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're > talking "stable", here. But keep in mind we're also talking about a _source_package_. -- see shy jo
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. But that was changing the default kernel. WHy not add just another one? Michael -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use PostgreSQL!
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:13:32PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote: > Can you put 2.2 at least in potato ? I am using here 2.1.131 but didn't > try to upgrade to 2.2.preX as I have understood that there were some > problems. Are the problems solved ? Can I safely grab the kernel, build > it with kernel-package and install the result ? > Are there many system configuration changes to be done to get 2.2.pre > kernels working ? The only one I can remember is to switch from lp1 to lp0 for the printer. Michael -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use PostgreSQL!
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote: > Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. What's the problem with ppp? I run it all the time and it works fine with all kernels up to 2.2.0-pre8. The final pre version (pre9) will be tested in a few minutes. michael -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use PostgreSQL!
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote: > The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one > knows. >From my experience, yes. After all we also have packages that won't work with kernel 2.0.* like pciutils. > I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to > download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was > released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there > may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible > for anything at all..." Okay with me. Michael -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use PostgreSQL!
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:43:27AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote: > Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink > and 2.2.0-final work perfectly until someone pointed out that > /usr/sbin/procinfo complains. Been running 2.1.1xx in production > with frozen for months. But then the latest procinfo works fine again. Michael -- Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers! Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz| Go Rhein Fire! Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux! Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Use PostgreSQL!
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Quoting Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I also was unable to get ppp or diald to work with a later 2.1.x kernel in > a hamm system. > > Documentation/Changes says the required version of ppp is 2.3.5 and hamm, > slink and potato all have this version. > > Bob I have just performed 3 different setups. HAMM, SLINK, and a hacked up Potato all with the 2.2.0-final (pre-9) kernel. This was the ONLY change I made to the system. All used ppp just fine including the ability for dial on demand and the interworking relationship with ipfwadm and ipmasq allowing me to forward connections from my internal ethernet network through my ppp interface and out into the internet. Ivan =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstien -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - This mail sent through IMP: http://web.horde.org/imp/
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Jan 22, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched by a >user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users go through >a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is more than offset by >reducing the amount of problems encountered by other users. Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people do. -- ciao, Marco
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote: > > > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then > > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential > > > problems. > > > > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the > > reasons the "extra" priority does exist. > > > > According to this it should be fine to include it as an "extra" package. > > Perhaps that is a reason for "extra", but it's really pointless. If it > can be installed, people will install it regardless of its priority. I'd > bet most people don't even think about a package's priority, largely > because many don't know what the priorities mean. In such case (even if the user install everything, including extra packages) I think there should be no problem if the package is a package containing just the kernel source (because source code, as such, is always harmless). -- "83de1cfc5d2e83e0b4b5f7968bf5108a" (a truly random sig)
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential > > problems. > > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the > reasons the "extra" priority does exist. > > According to this it should be fine to include it as an "extra" package. Perhaps that is a reason for "extra", but it's really pointless. If it can be installed, people will install it regardless of its priority. I'd bet most people don't even think about a package's priority, largely because many don't know what the priorities mean. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- 80% of people surveyed think they are above average drivers
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now. > > > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that > > > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist. > > > > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell > > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me". > > Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle > > and putting a "push" sign above it. The "affordance" of the handle > > talks far more loudly than the sign. > > > > There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're > > talking "stable", here. > > Perhaps the 2.1.125 kernel source should be removed from archs which > don't use it then? The more I think about it, the less objection I have to a source package. They're nice to have, require thought before installing, and give some extra "bragging rights", as someone put it. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote: > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential > problems. This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the reasons the "extra" priority does exist. According to this it should be fine to include it as an "extra" package. Thanks. -- "217e87fb4c104713e650fd2423353a7a" (a truly random sig)
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote: > I'll share that fantasy. As linux becomes more and more mainstream, it's > going to be even more difficult to dream. Of course, the reality is that > most users don't need the 2.2 kernel anyway. unfortunately (maybe) for Debian, very few inexperienced users choose it (since they don't know about it), and instead choose Red Hat or another commercial vendor in the limelight. -tl .. please forgive my abrupt ending hre - but my conection is xtrememleyyhiclmelyey BAD hiccuppy etc must sign off - EF D8 33 68 B3 E3 E9 D2 C1 3E 51 22 8A AA 7B 98
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote: > > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now. > > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that > > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist. > > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me". > Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle > and putting a "push" sign above it. The "affordance" of the handle > talks far more loudly than the sign. > > There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're > talking "stable", here. Perhaps the 2.1.125 kernel source should be removed from archs which don't use it then? -- "I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best work in the dark." -- Earth: Final Conflict
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> Brian> make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would > Brian> be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then > > Heh, thats the idea. :-) > > Brian> wonder why things don't work. > > Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink > and 2.2.0-final work perfectly until someone pointed out that > /usr/sbin/procinfo complains. Been running 2.1.1xx in production > with frozen for months. People swore to me that 2.0.36 would "drop in" without a problem. They were wrong. > I'd say at least include a source package for whatever 2.2.0 is > available at the moment of release, so we get the bragging rights. > :-) A deb would be even more impressive. Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential problems. > Brian> Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched > Brian> by a user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users > Brian> go through a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is > Brian> more than offset by reducing the amount of problems encountered > Brian> by other users. > > It may be hopeless fantasy, but I'd like to believe our users aren't > this helpless. I'll share that fantasy. As linux becomes more and more mainstream, it's going to be even more difficult to dream. Of course, the reality is that most users don't need the 2.2 kernel anyway. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- He who laughs last usually make a backup.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, > > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of > > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian > > supports 2.2. (I was at a LUG meeting the other day, and I was asked about > > this very thing a couple of times; people obviously care about it.) > > > > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule? > > > > (For those not yet in the know -- kernel 2.2 will probably be released next > > week.) > > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now. > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist. Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me". Adding a disclaimer is like taking a door with a big, "pull me" handle and putting a "push" sign above it. The "affordance" of the handle talks far more loudly than the sign. There is good reason to have new kernels in "unstable", but we're talking "stable", here. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Only half the people in the world are above average intelligence.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
At 11:32 PM 1/21/99 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > >> > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at >> > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. >> >> I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any >> of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel >> source's Documents/CHANGES file. > >I also was unable to get ppp or diald to work with a later 2.1.x kernel in >a hamm system. > >Documentation/Changes says the required version of ppp is 2.3.5 and hamm, >slink and potato all have this version. > >Bob I've had trouble with dhcpd working with the 2.1.xxx kernels, haven't done much troubleshooting but it may be cause for concern.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
hi Ship's Log, Lt. Ivan E. Moore II, Stardate 210199.1558: > > > > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule? > > probably... :( I'd say this should only apply to a not-more-then-a-month-freeze :) until potato get's out debian would get kinda out-of-date. On the other hand, when slink will get out somewhen in the next 2 weeks including 2.2 it'll be very up2date. So, I'll encurrage this li'll break-of-rools Geetings -- Alexander N. Benner - 1st year grad. physicsstudent and creationist - | > The great unification theory reduces matter to two particles T & V < | | > That stands for the Hebrew words Tohu and Vohu - formless and void. < | GEN 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote: > The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one > knows. Well, assuming it's an improvement on the pre-release ones, we can make a pretty good guess :) > I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to > download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was > released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there > may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible > for anything at all..." But we say that anyway! I don't think there's any need to FUD 2.2, but we could perhaps include the fact that it is relatively untested on debian at the time of release, and to check bugs.debian.org Matthew -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Steward of the Cambridge Tolkien Society Selwyn College Computer Support http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/8841/ http://www.cam.ac.uk/CambUniv/Societies/tolkien/ http://pick.sel.cam.ac.uk/
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:00:50AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Ben Pfaff wrote: > > You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed, > > right? > > Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion. > > > You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the > > command-line, for instance. > > I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help > though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone) 2.2.0-pre6 works fine here, on my genuine SB16C (pnp). options sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1 mpu_io=0x330 dma16=5 options opl3 io=0x388 Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org pgpJkR4oOUBCM.pgp Description: PGP signature
pppd 2.3.5 (was RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. >> >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a >current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image? Why have >two packages? I don't see a problem at all: slink includes pppd version 3.3.5, which is fully compatible with the 2.2 series of kernels. This being the case, the kernel-2.2.0 package would simply need to depend on slink's pppd. Not a big deal in the least... anyone running slink would have the required pppd anyway! -ed
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. > > I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any > of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel > source's Documents/CHANGES file. I also was unable to get ppp or diald to work with a later 2.1.x kernel in a hamm system. Documentation/Changes says the required version of ppp is 2.3.5 and hamm, slink and potato all have this version. Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help > > though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone) > > Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel > docs, there is no such thing as a SB 16 clone. That part of the documentation is inaccurate, and has been for quite some time. There are SB16 clones, based on the ALS007 and ALS100 chips by Avance Logic. The proof is in drivers/sound/sb_common.c and Documentation/sound/ALS007. The ALS007 is apparently a SB16-alike except for the mixer, and the ALS100 is even closer (it uses the SB16 code unchanged). My /proc/sound reads, in part: Audio Devices: 0: Sound Blaster 16 (ALS-100) (4.2) (DUPLEX) and I get 16-bit input and output without difficulty. I've been successfully using this card with Linux since the summer of 1997; the card itself was purchased in November 1996. Admittedly, these cards are probably nowhere near as common as the average cheap WSS card, and it's likely that the previous poster doesn't have one, but they DO exist... --Rob -- Rob Tillotson N9MTB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote: > Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. ---end quoted text--- I think it's your system..(or very few..) I have had no problems on 6 systems I run (ranging from personal home workstation to laptop to work server's running anywhere from plain samba to web servers to print servers. But you are right that there may be issues we haven't seen. That's why it should be an *added* bonus and not the main image. IMHO Ivan -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstien -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brian> make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would Brian> be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then Heh, thats the idea. :-) Brian> wonder why things don't work. Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink and 2.2.0-final work perfectly until someone pointed out that /usr/sbin/procinfo complains. Been running 2.1.1xx in production with frozen for months. I'd say at least include a source package for whatever 2.2.0 is available at the moment of release, so we get the bragging rights. :-) A deb would be even more impressive. Brian> Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched Brian> by a user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users Brian> go through a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is Brian> more than offset by reducing the amount of problems encountered Brian> by other users. It may be hopeless fantasy, but I'd like to believe our users aren't this helpless. - PGP E4 70 6E 59 80 6A F5 78 63 32 BC FB 7A 08 53 4C __ _Debian GNU Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mm mm / /(_)_ __ _ ___ __"netgod" irc.debian.org mm mm / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / m m m / /__| | | | | |_| |> < Yes, I'm Linus, and I am your God. mm mm \/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ -- Linus, keynote address, Expo 98 GO BLUE
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Joseph Carter wrote: (B> (B> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: (B> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a (B> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, (B> > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of (B> > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian (B> > supports 2.2. (I was at a LUG meeting the other day, and I was asked about (B> > this very thing a couple of times; people obviously care about it.) (B> > (B> > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule? (B> > (B> > (For those not yet in the know -- kernel 2.2 will probably be released next (B> > week.) (B> (B> There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now. (B> I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that (B> slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist. (B> (BCan you put 2.2 at least in potato ? I am using here 2.1.131 but didn't (Btry to upgrade to 2.2.preX as I have understood that there were some (Bproblems. Are the problems solved ? Can I safely grab the kernel, build (Bit with kernel-package and install the result ? (BAre there many system configuration changes to be done to get 2.2.pre (Bkernels working ? (B (BTIA, (B (BIonutz
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian > supports 2.2. (I was at a LUG meeting the other day, and I was asked about > this very thing a couple of times; people obviously care about it.) > > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule? > > (For those not yet in the know -- kernel 2.2 will probably be released next > week.) There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now. I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist. -- "I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best work in the dark." -- Earth: Final Conflict
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:43:23PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote: > On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > > > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > > > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. > > > > I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any > > of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel > > source's Documents/CHANGES file. > > It's "Changes" and yes I have read it: > > master:/home/wind# pppd -v > pppd: unrecognized option '-v' > pppd version 2.3 patch level 5 > > The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide > ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. The current ppp in slink works with the latest kernels. -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. I'm using nothing but packages from slink/sparc and I see no incompatibilities. Then again the box isn't running X, any of the other sparc devs out there have any input on which kernel provides the 'safest' X for sparc? -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would > > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's > > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. > > No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think including a kernel > image would be nice... but if that is too much I'd at least like to see the > source package get in. I understand what you're saying, but default or not doesn't make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then wonder why things don't work. Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched by a user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users go through a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is more than offset by reducing the amount of problems encountered by other users. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Management should work for the engineers, not the other way around.
RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> It's "Changes" and yes I have read it: > > master:/home/wind# pppd -v > pppd: unrecognized option '-v' > pppd version 2.3 patch level 5 > > The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide > ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. > Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel image? Why have two packages? -Brent
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Brian White wrote: [kernel image] > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think including a kernel image would be nice... but if that is too much I'd at least like to see the source package get in. -- see shy jo
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Wichert Akkerman wrote: > I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help > though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone) Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel docs, there is no such thing as a SB 16 clone. There are a lot of boards that can run in sb emulation in 8 bit mode, that claim to be SB 16 or SB pro clones. Most boards that you think are a SB clone really have the Windows Sound System chips in them. I have 2 machines that I had set up as SB clones for the 2.0.x kernels, and they worked in 8 bit mode and were generally crappy. With the newer kernels I have reconfigured both machines to use the proper Windows Sound System drivers (the ad1848 chip), and they work much better than I've ever seen them, and in 16 bit mode at last. I ended up just adding the following to /etc/modultils/local to get my card working: options ad1848 io=0x530 irq=7 dma=1 options opl3 io=0x388 -- see shy jo
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. > > I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any > of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel > source's Documents/CHANGES file. It's "Changes" and yes I have read it: master:/home/wind# pppd -v pppd: unrecognized option '-v' pppd version 2.3 patch level 5 The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me. /Allan -- Allan M. Wind Phone: 781.938.5272 (home) 687 Main St., 2nd fl. Fax:781.938.6641 (home) Woburn, MA 01801Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote: > You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed, > right? Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion. > You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the > command-line, for instance. I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone) > I have the following in my conf.modules for that reason: I do hope you put that somewhere in /etc/modutils/ as well so it doesn't get overriden when update-modules is called. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpx3AWu4iLqw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On 1999-01-21 19:32, John Goerzen wrote: > While the internals did change radically, the only thing most people need > concern themselves with is that the /dev/lp? number changed by one digit. I > hardly call that a "radical" change Well, it of course depends on how you define radical. I had two printer ports and they were switched. Also, I it took me a bit to figure that conf.modules needed changed due to the broadning of scope (parport_pc): > > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. > > I've used ppp with late 2.1.x kernels with no big trouble. There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO). Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived. /Allan -- Allan M. Wind Phone: 781.938.5272 (home) 687 Main St., 2nd fl. Fax:781.938.6641 (home) Woburn, MA 01801Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, > > I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports > to use. The 2.2 kernels work much better for them than the 2.0.3x kernels, > and requires less (usually none) patching to get them to compile. For > example, the 2.0.35 sparc-kernel patch in slink right now is 2.8 megs > (compressed). I've been able to compile straight from the pristine source > for 2.1.128 to 2.1.132 (one small header fix in 132). I'm going to try the > 2.2.0pre9 and see if I get the same results. No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's very stable, but it will have incompatibilities. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Management should work for the engineers, not the other way around.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian > supports 2.2. (I was at a LUG meeting the other day, and I was asked about > this very thing a couple of times; people obviously care about it.) Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles the kernel, they will expect it to work. I think it's best to leave 2.2 completely in unstable. It's still available there and will have better support. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Tired of spam? See what you can do to fight it at: http://www.cauce.org/
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Previously Ben Collins wrote: > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any > changes to the basic setup. Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS sound modules and they failed horribly. I've never seem them like this before. Luckily I have ALSA working :) You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed, right? You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the command-line, for instance. I have the following in my conf.modules for that reason: options sb io=0x220 dma=1 dma16=5 irq=5
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
Previously Ben Collins wrote: > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any > changes to the basic setup. Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS sound modules and they failed horribly. I've never seem them like this before. Luckily I have ALSA working :) Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgp6jgynJb8vw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel source's Documents/CHANGES file. -Brent
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote: > On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote: > > > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any > > changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i > > say yes, it is stable with Debian. > > Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and While the internals did change radically, the only thing most people need concern themselves with is that the /dev/lp? number changed by one digit. I hardly call that a "radical" change > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at > least). I am sure that there are other things as well. I've used ppp with late 2.1.x kernels with no big trouble.
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote: > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any > changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i > say yes, it is stable with Debian. Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at least). I am sure that there are other things as well. /Allan -- Allan M. Wind Phone: 781.938.5272 (home) 687 Main St., 2nd fl. Fax:781.938.6641 (home) Woburn, MA 01801Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:32:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one > > knows. > > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any > changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i > say yes, it is stable with Debian. I agree. My desktop system here at BNL is running pre5 with no problems, and all the machines at buoy.com except the terminal server (which has 273 days uptime, and I can't bear to reboot it) are running one of the preX versions. Our news server gets the snot beat out of it since it runs innd AND squid, so yeah, it's stable. Tim -- (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps "Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is?" -- Frank Scully ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
How close to 3.0 does the 2.2 kernel get Debian? - Bruce -- On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. > The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it > since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a great "technical" feature of our > distribution that might give us some bragging rights over the other > distros. > > -Brent
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. > > The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it > > The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one > knows. All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i say yes, it is stable with Debian. -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote: >I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to >download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was >released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there >may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible >for anything at all..." I hate to sound like another "me too"-er, but I like that idea. I'm running linux 2.2 on my slink box, and haven't had any problems -- but we certainly don't have the time to test it extensively enough to make it an official part of the distro (and the Deep Freeze would definitely make it impossible). I'm sure including the image and source wouldn't violate the Deep Freeze with a little bit of law-bending :) -ed
RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
> I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to > download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was > released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there > may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible > for anything at all..." > I have absolutely no problem with that. Seems like a prudent and advisable way to proceed. -Brent
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote: > I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. > The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one knows. I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible for anything at all..." Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
RE: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a great "technical" feature of our distribution that might give us some bragging rights over the other distros. -Brent
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian > supports 2.2. (I was at a LUG meeting the other day, and I was asked about > this very thing a couple of times; people obviously care about it.) I think it should be as both source and image. (2.2.0-final at least) It shouldn't be the default..but it should be there. Maybe with a note in the description field that it's still not a "official-stable" release but Linus does say's unless there is a real stupid mistake on his part than nothing will be changed for the 2.2.0 release which will probably come out Monday. (unless there is a stupid mistake). I say put it in! It's been in it's version of "frozen" for a while now. > > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule? probably... :( Ivan -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstien -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel, I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports to use. The 2.2 kernels work much better for them than the 2.0.3x kernels, and requires less (usually none) patching to get them to compile. For example, the 2.0.35 sparc-kernel patch in slink right now is 2.8 megs (compressed). I've been able to compile straight from the pristine source for 2.1.128 to 2.1.132 (one small header fix in 132). I'm going to try the 2.2.0pre9 and see if I get the same results. Also, for sun4c's 2.0 kernels (even patched ones) just will not do. This is due to a "slow down" bug in that architecture. However, 2.1/2.2 do not exibit this behavior. This is especially noticable when doing mke2fs, which for a 2 gig drive took 40 minutes with 2.0.35 and only 10 minutes with 2.1.129. Testiments: Sparc IPC: 2.1.131, 46 days up (only shutdown once since install) NASA Irc Server Sparc LX: 2.1.130, 52 days up (died once from power failure in building) Logging server for 50+ machines Sparc LX: 2.1.130, 18 days up (developement and test machine) I run the dog shit out of this one, 300 megs of cvs repositories, light httpd use, heavy LDAP use with 200 megs of indexes. It only get's rebooted for testing, the shutdowns aren't related to the kernel. -- --- - - --- - - - --- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- - - - --- --- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
