Re: glibc 2.1 (test release 2.0.98) for i386 (was: Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!)

[Joel Klecker]

At 11:29 -0700 1998-10-17, Matt McLean wrote:
The most obvious one is that not every architecture has an 'egcc', because
egcs is the main compiler. So, we shouldn't be setting $CC.
That is not correct, the latest egcs packages provide a 'egcc' symlink on 
every architecture.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://web.espy.org/>
  Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.debian.org/>

glibc 2.1 (test release 2.0.98) for i386 (was: Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!)

[Joel Klecker]

At 21:19 +0200 1998-10-10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 09, "J.H.M. Dassen Ray\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
>> supported), but not "a lot of packages".
>IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
>is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
In the next weeks my site will go on the 6bone and I plan using debian
for our IPv6 gateway box. Where can I find a libc6.1 for intel?
I have uploaded i386 binaries and source to 
.

I built the package with 2.1.125ac2 kernel headers.
Note that the binary packages have had no testing, the packaging is 
*probably* OK, but I can't vouch for the libraries themselves.

The packaging should support all Debian architectures, i386, powerpc, and 
sparc have all been tested with this or somewhat earlier incarnations of my 
packaging.

Will the current netutils just work with IPv6 after recompiling or
do I have to patch it?
AFAIK, the current Debian net-tools is new enough that a reconfig 
(net-tools has an interactive configure script to decide which protocols it 
should support) and recompile should offer IPv6 support.

BTW, please be aware that this is only a test release, and you probably 
will find bugs.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://web.espy.org/>
  Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.debian.org/>

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Santiago Vila]

On 11 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>  Santiago> Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
>  Santiago> a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
> 
>   What does not work for you using kernel-package on newer
>  kernels? I have never had a problem, so far, all the way upto
>  2.1.125.

Ooops!, sorry. I meant the kernel-image package. Since there are a lot of
new drivers, there is a lot of work to be done (think also about
integration with boot-floppies and such).

-- 
 "55785287203c7505601ba1259ea99633" (a truly random sig)

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Santiago> Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
 Santiago> a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.

What does not work for you using kernel-package on newer
 kernels? I have never had a problem, so far, all the way upto
 2.1.125. 

manoj
-- 
 They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can
 see nothing but sea. Francis Bacon
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Avery Pennarun]

On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 02:34:28PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:

> > > Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release.  Don't hold it back for any
> > > > package.
> 
> I still think that calling slink "a badly needed cleanup" implies that
> hamm is horribly broken. I agree that it would be good for debian to
> release more frequently, but that's not the same as saying that hamm
> doesn't work.

"Horribly broken" is probably not the term I would use for hamm.  Red Hat
5.0 was horribly broken. Slackware has always been horribly broken.

But hamm was so close to perfect -- it almost installs wonderfully, except
for a few critical things that mess up as I mentioned in my previous mail.

In particular, the X packages install in the wrong order and thus don't work
without twiddling.  The kernels don't boot on some systems because they have
too many drivers.  APT isn't the default.  Multi-CD support doesn't work (or
perhaps it does work, but it's non-obvious if it does).

If we avoid delaying releases, Debian 2.2 could be out by April.  That
gives lots of time to integration-test the Linux 2.2 kernel, and it means
slink will be rock-solid for users while they wait.

People who really need kernel 2.2 can install it from the new unstable. 
After all, that's where it belongs -- 2.2.0 is bound to be unstable for a
while.

Linux 2.2 will break things that we don't expect.  I know -- I'm running the
2.1 kernels already, and I've had to hack around a bit of funny behaviour
from setserial, ipchains, and a few other packages.  That's just me.  Other
people will have other problems.  Not serious ones, but quite a few of them,
and if we rush the release of slink we'll miss some.  If we don't rush it
out, Joey's estimate of a 2-month delay is very reasonable.  I don't want to
see a two month delay.

Have fun,

Avery

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Stone]

Quoting Buddha Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release.  Don't hold it back for any
> > > package.
> > 
> > What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
> > adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.
> 
> What needs to be cleaned up is our reputation for taking a -long- time 
> between releases.  That is the major (if not -only-) release goal for 
> Slink.  As such, it IS something we desperately need _now_.

I still think that calling slink "a badly needed cleanup" implies that
hamm is horribly broken. I agree that it would be good for debian to
release more frequently, but that's not the same as saying that hamm
doesn't work.

Mike Stone

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Buddha Buck]

> Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release.  Don't hold it back for any
> > package.
> 
> What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
> adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.

What needs to be cleaned up is our reputation for taking a -long- time 
between releases.  That is the major (if not -only-) release goal for 
Slink.  As such, it IS something we desperately need _now_.

> 
> Mike Stone
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
 Buddha Buck  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Joel Klecker]

At 21:19 +0200 1998-10-10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In the next weeks my site will go on the 6bone and I plan using debian
for our IPv6 gateway box. Where can I find a libc6.1 for intel?
Will the current netutils just work with IPv6 after recompiling or
do I have to patch it?
My glibc-pre2.1 packaging should work fine for i386, but it hasn't been 
tested. I need to rebuild the source package and put it somewhere public 
though.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://web.espy.org/>
  Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.debian.org/>

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Joel Klecker]

At 13:13 +0200 1998-10-09, J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\) wrote:
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
glibc 2.1 (2.0.9x until release) does not change the soname, symbol 
versioning prevents that from being necessary (in theory at least). alpha 
has libc6.1, but that is due to the fact that its original libc was glibc 
1.99, which claims to be libc6, but is incompatible with glibc 2.0.x.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://web.espy.org/>
  Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.debian.org/>

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Stone]

Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release.  Don't hold it back for any
> package.

What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.

Mike Stone

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Avery Pennarun]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:11:10PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.
> 
> Joey, that's exaggerated by a lot. But I agree with your reasoning-

I agree with Joey completely, and I don't see an exaggeration.  To take a
rule from my personal experience: nothing ever works the first time.  It
took 2.0.x more than _thirty_ patchlevels before it started working right. 
Linux 2.0.0 was a disaster.

I think Debian 2.1 should be little more than a bugfixed version of hamm. 
My 2.0 CD's have some serious install bugs, including a completely broken
cd_autoup script and bad X11 (xbase won't configure until you install an
Xserver, but it installs before all Xservers, which then won't work because
they try to to configure X without a working xbase...)

In response to someone else's comment about being the "first out with Linux
2.2" -- I don't think we want to be.  Red Hat was the first out with glibc,
and look at all the nastiness they went through.  Let Debian be the slow,
stable one, and learn from everyone else's mistakes.

Linux kernel 2.2 should be dropped into the new unstable distribution the
moment it's available, and we should plan to use it in Debian 2.2 -- but
let's integration-test it heavily before we drop it on the unsuspecting
public.  (That said, any Debian 2.1 user can run APT and install kernel 2.2
easily from unstable.)

Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release.  Don't hold it back for any
package.

Have fun,

Avery

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Marco d'Itri]

On Oct 09, "J.H.M. Dassen Ray\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
 >> supported), but not "a lot of packages".
 >IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
 >is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
In the next weeks my site will go on the 6bone and I plan using debian
for our IPv6 gateway box. Where can I find a libc6.1 for intel?
Will the current netutils just work with IPv6 after recompiling or
do I have to patch it?

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Russell Coker]

>> Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
>> Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
>> 
>> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
>> supported), but not "a lot of packages".
>
>But some cannot be ported at the moment: iBCS!

There already is a port of IBCS to 2.1 kernels.  Recently I was at a client
site where they couldn't compile a copy of IBCS they'd downloaded.  It turned
out that they had a 2.0.35 kernel and a 2.1.x version of IBCS...

--
Got no future, got no past.
Here today, built to last.

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:28:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> >various compilation of programs.
> 
> I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..

Yes and no. There are some programs that depend on actual kernel headers.

I agree with Joey, kernel 2.2 should not go as the default kernel in Debian
2.1, but it may be possible to have a package with it and the loads of
modules (I'm guessing here, but I think 2.2 will have 2-4 times more modules
as 2.0). It may be also nice to have a kernel-image-smp. I remember reading
an article on one of those crappy ZD magazines about how odd it seemed to
have to download a kernel from the net and compile it to have SMP support
under linux and on the other hand Windows NT supported it right out of the
box -- yeah, right, and Erwin will be running on SunOS next week.


Marcelo

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Marc Singer]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:09:56PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> 
> > I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
> > 2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
> > with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
> 
> A little tiny line in netbase init.d scirpts' needs to be changed because it
> reports an ugly error because of different routing code. Also,

The existing script will sometimes generate excess routes for the most
recent kernels because they add routes automatically when interfaces
are configured.  I haven't found them to report errors, though, and I
haven't found them to operate incorrectly.

> rc.boot/0setserial needs to be modified not to do wild interrupt guessing
> since it's no longer supported.
> 
> And althought I have run 2.1.x since 76 or something like that, I wouldn't
> put it on slink... remember, there were steady kernel releases up to 2.0.32
> and that settled until the pletora of attacks appeared (bonk, netsea, nuke
> et al)
> 
> 
>   Marcelo
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely a lot of
> work, since there are a lot of new drivers.

It works like a charm with 2.1.x kernels. (Kudos to Manoj!)



Marcelo

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:

> I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
> 2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
> with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).

A little tiny line in netbase init.d scirpts' needs to be changed because it
reports an ugly error because of different routing code. Also,
rc.boot/0setserial needs to be modified not to do wild interrupt guessing
since it's no longer supported.

And althought I have run 2.1.x since 76 or something like that, I wouldn't
put it on slink... remember, there were steady kernel releases up to 2.0.32
and that settled until the pletora of attacks appeared (bonk, netsea, nuke
et al)


Marcelo

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[David Welton]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:06:30PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> > just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> > be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
> > towards 2.2.0?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to just supply 2.2.0 and not make it the default
> kernel? It will take some weeks until it is really stable I think.

Right, this sounds like the most reasonable course of action.

"We are supplying 2.2.0, but please be aware that it may cause
problems with your system, and some packages may not work with it."

Ciao,
-- 
David Welton  http://www.efn.org/~davidw 

Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Meskes]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
> Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
> 
> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
> supported), but not "a lot of packages".

But some cannot be ported at the moment: iBCS!

> Also, from a marketing point of view, it would be great to have the
> first distribution using Linux 2.2 :-) Imagine the stickers on the CDs :)

This can be done also if we provide 2.2 while keeping 2.0.35 the default.

Michael
-- 
Dr. Michael Meskes  | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant   | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire!
Mummert+Partner |  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian
Unternehmensberatung AG |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Meskes]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.

Joey, that's exaggerated by a lot. But I agree with your reasoning-

>  . We have several kernel module package that need to be re-packaged.
>  . We have to rework on the sound modules, possibly, I dunno.

We won't have to if we provide both kernels. We just would also add two
packages for those modules compiled for both.

>  . We have to rework on the boot-floppies to cope with different
>and/or more modules etc.

Not needed under my approach.

>  . We have to ensure that the new kernel headers won't infect
>various compilation of programs.

Shouldn't be much of a problem.

>  . We might need to re-compile/re-package the libc.

No.

>  . We need to include new programs / packages to interfere with
>new kernel interfaces.

Don't we have them already?

Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Meskes  | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant   | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire!
Mummert+Partner |  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian
Unternehmensberatung AG |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Meskes]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:18:46PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> I do run 2.1.124 on my laptop and am really impressed by this
> kernel. It uses less memory and runs smoother under heavy load than
> any kernel I've ever used.

I have to agree. 124 is great on my notebook too. I'm just compiling 125.

Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Meskes  | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant   | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire!
Mummert+Partner |  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian
Unternehmensberatung AG |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Meskes]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
> towards 2.2.0?

Wouldn't it be better to just supply 2.2.0 and not make it the default
kernel? It will take some weeks until it is really stable I think.

Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Meskes  | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant   | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire!
Mummert+Partner |  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian
Unternehmensberatung AG |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Joseph Carter]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
> I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
> be problems.
> 
> I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.

Agreed.  There are still problems in 2.1.x that NEED to be adressed and they
won't happen in a week or even two weeks.  Save it for the next release
which could be Debian 3.0 with full apt and 2.2.x kernel, among other
things.  (Provided all that works)


pgpNvdrJCvyNq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36..

Only recompile, to work with 2.1 expect to fix a lot of code..

> When did we get sound modules? With 2.2.0 we could actually have some!!

 You did know we have alsa packages, right? And they
even work with both 2.0 and 2.1 kernels 
 
> >  . We have to rework on the boot-floppies to cope with different
> >and/or more modules etc.
> 
> We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36..

No, same as with hamm: default to one kernel and supply the sources and
images for 2.0.36 as well.
> 
> >  . We have to ensure that the new kernel headers won't infect
> >various compilation of programs.
> 
> I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..

Not everything can use that.. remember the hdparm disaster when we switched
to 2.0.35 ?

> Nope, works fine here and with countless others..

and 2.1 broke lots of packages last time I tried it, no to mention I got
errors when booting since route works differently now, ipfwadm is replaces
by ipchains, etc..

> If its not done for slink, then definitely for 2.2.. (2.2 for 2.2.x hmm)

That is a whole different thing.. 

> I hope our release manager won't jump on any track without fully
> considering it..

Remember the beginning/end of trainspotting? :)

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/


pgpfZ7McrhH1Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which is why I asked for another week to see IF we need to re-target,
> instead of asking for a re-target now..

Bogus argument. Kernels do not have a set release date, and 2.2 will take
a couple of weeks, esp. since there will probably be a couple of
pre2.2 kernels as well. 2.0.36 will very likely be finished during the
freeze and will not break any existing packages. I hope Brian will allow
that one in, especially since it includes a bunch of security fixes and
finally has working adaptec drivers.

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/


pgp1IZqeFk1Hk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[warp]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> > just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> > be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
> > towards 2.2.0?
> 
> No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.
> 
>  . We have several kernel module package that need to be re-packaged.

We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36..

>  . We have to rework on the sound modules, possibly, I dunno.

When did we get sound modules? With 2.2.0 we could actually have some!!

>  . We have to rework on the boot-floppies to cope with different
>and/or more modules etc.

We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36..

>  . We have to ensure that the new kernel headers won't infect
>various compilation of programs.

I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..

>  . We might need to re-compile/re-package the libc.

Nope, works fine here and with countless others..

>  . We need to include new programs / packages to interfere with
>new kernel interfaces.

We have ipchains in slink at the moment, so we are already leaning in
that direction..

>  . We need to review our documentation wrt the kernel (maybe, I duno)

See 2.0.36

> 
> All this can't be done in 6 days.

I did not ask it to be done in 6 days, I asked that we wait another week
so we can see if we need to re-target for 2.2.0, if its not looking like
it won't be out in a day or two at the end of this extra week then we
need to do nothing, on the other hand if it IS going to be out, then it
seems perfectly reasonable that we fully consider (and perhaps vote on)
re-targeting at 2.2.x..
> 
> Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
> I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
> be problems.

If its not done for slink, then definitely for 2.2.. (2.2 for 2.2.x hmm)
> 
> I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.

I hope our release manager won't jump on any track without fully
considering it..


Zephaniah E, Hull..
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Joey
> 
> -- 
> No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
> to answer.   -- Perl book




pgp1WzMmclavg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Martin Schulze]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
> towards 2.2.0?

No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.

 . We have several kernel module package that need to be re-packaged.
 . We have to rework on the sound modules, possibly, I dunno.
 . We have to rework on the boot-floppies to cope with different
   and/or more modules etc.
 . We have to ensure that the new kernel headers won't infect
   various compilation of programs.
 . We might need to re-compile/re-package the libc.
 . We need to include new programs / packages to interfere with
   new kernel interfaces.
 . We need to review our documentation wrt the kernel (maybe, I duno)

All this can't be done in 6 days.

Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
be problems.

I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book


pgpCyzcO0yeu8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[warp]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:42:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
> > properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
> > 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
> 
> Things like smbfsx that have 2.0 and 2.1 versions will need to be
> consolidated. (Though that's not a big problem.)

Don't forget dhcp* and tleds, and who knows what other little things
which WILL come up when 2.2.x is out, ready for it or not..

Zephaniah E, Hull.
> 
> Mike Stone
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


pgp1NRiURaN6X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[warp]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
> > Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
> > 
> > I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
> > supported), but not "a lot of packages".
> 
> Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
> a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.

Actually it should not be that much work if its written to be expanded
(And if its not I'm not sure we should be using it in the first place)
> 
> We should base our distribution in stable software, not in betas.

Which is why I asked for another week to see IF we need to re-target,
instead of asking for a re-target now..
> 
> Maybe we should wait for 2.0.36, not for 2.2.

As I said, lets wait another week, and see where things have landed, if
2.0.36 is ready and 2.2.0 is still a bit away then we do 2.0.36, if
2.2.5 is out and looking stable..

Zephaniah E, Hull..
> 
> -- 
>  "33ca525b2c9f2cd0f9b40ef52e0d64f6" (a truly random sig)
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


pgpD0mSk7AYDF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Michael Stone]

Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
> properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
> 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).

Things like smbfsx that have 2.0 and 2.1 versions will need to be
consolidated. (Though that's not a big problem.)

Mike Stone

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Paul Slootman]

On Fri 09 Oct 1998, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> 
> > and the message Linus just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and
> > 2.2.0p1 could the freeze be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY
> > re-target slink towards 2.2.0?
> 
> I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
> properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
> 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).

Isdnutils needs to be rebuilt; some of the structures passed in ioctl's
have changed. The important stuff from isdnutils refuses to run on 2.2
(you get a message about wrong versions, so at least it doesn't crash).

That said, it's trivial to rebuild (if perhaps a bit longwinded).


Paul Slootman
-- 
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software,   Enschede,   the Netherlands

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Santiago Vila]

On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
> Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
> 
> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
> supported), but not "a lot of packages".

Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.

We should base our distribution in stable software, not in betas.

Maybe we should wait for 2.0.36, not for 2.2.

-- 
 "33ca525b2c9f2cd0f9b40ef52e0d64f6" (a truly random sig)

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
> supported), but not "a lot of packages".

IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
 
Ray
-- 
Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Samuel Tardieu]

> I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
> properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
> 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).

I do run 2.1.124 on my laptop and am really impressed by this
kernel. It uses less memory and runs smoother under heavy load than
any kernel I've ever used.

Moreover, it has never been so easy to configure my soundcard and IP
firewalling with ipchains is really comfortable compared to ipfwadm.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Samuel Tardieu]

> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.

I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not "a lot of packages".

Also, from a marketing point of view, it would be great to have the
first distribution using Linux 2.2 :-) Imagine the stickers on the CDs :)

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
> towards 2.2.0?

I don't think this would be a good idea, even if we delay the freeze.

There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled for
Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.

But if Linux 2.2 is released as stable in the near future, maybe we should
release Debian 2.2 soon after Debian 2.1. This way we would have more
time to think about the complex FHS move.

-- 
 "3a872f2b50d454b17721f21b6fd30055" (a truly random sig)

Re: The freeze and IMMINENT 2.2.0p1!!

[J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)]

On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In light of the perl issues (see my last message)

A bug report has been submitted to ftp.debian.org to put the previous
version back, which means the perl issues need not be dealt with in the
current development cycle.

> and the message Linus just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and
> 2.2.0p1 could the freeze be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY
> re-target slink towards 2.2.0?

I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).

If the release manager is willing to accept the 2.2 kernel and rebuilt
bootdisks during the freeze, I see no reason to postpone the freeze date.
Brian?

Ray
-- 
POPULATION EXPLOSION  Unique in human experience, an event which happened 
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.  
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan