Re: add Packet Writing support to CD-RW DVD-RW
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:46:08AM +0200, Bluefuture wrote: > Package: kernel > Version: unknown > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Please add Packet Writing support to debian kernel for CD-RW DVD-RW: > Home: http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340/packet.html > Patches: http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340/patches/packet/ The current version of these patches still has problems. When this fixed it'll get merged upstream and thus in Debian. That'll be post-sarge.
Bug#263169: loadmodules incomplete
Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-03 10:36]: Attached you can find a patch. This looks like a hack to me which works around the real problem. See maybe #256113. I don't see that the patch is a hack. It looks into /proc/modules (the user space interface for module management) to get a list of loaded modules. Using this data it generates a list of modules to be loaded from the initrd. On the other side, the current mkinitrd searches for entries in /proc/scsi and uses 45 lines sed (hardwired into mkinitrd!) to do a mapping to module names. I doubt that /proc/scsi is the right way to guess which modules are loaded. At least for sata_sil and sata_sis it doesn't work, as it seems. Regards Harri
Bug#256113: /proc/scsi for sata_sil
This is /proc/scsi for my PC (booted from a disk managed by sata_sil): # ls -ld $(find /proc/scsi ) dr-xr-xr-x 3 root root 0 Aug 5 08:32 /proc/scsi -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 5 08:32 /proc/scsi/device_info -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 5 08:32 /proc/scsi/scsi dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Aug 5 08:32 /proc/scsi/usb-storage -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 5 08:32 /proc/scsi/usb-storage/2
Re: Reducing the number of kernels
* Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-30 23:57]: > > > What needs to be done to update alpha? > > > > http://people.debian.org/~nobse/kernel-image-2.6.7-alpha/ > > I'm still waiting for feedback. > > Has anyone reviewed or tested them in the meantime? I got no feedback and uploaded them last weekend. Norbert
Bug#263169: loadmodules incomplete
Hi, Harald Dunkel writes: > the patch [...] looks into /proc/modules (the user space interface > for module management) to get a list of loaded modules. This only works if you are building an initrd for a kernel with the exact same module configuration. > On the other side, the current mkinitrd searches for entries in > /proc/scsi and uses 45 lines sed (hardwired into mkinitrd!) to do a > mapping to module names. mkinitrd is far from perfect. Nevertheless, it works nicely on a great many systems. > I doubt that /proc/scsi is the right way to guess which modules > are loaded. It is, since it contains information about the installed SCSI hardware, not about the loaded drivers. > At least for sata_sil and sata_sis it doesn't work, as it seems. Patch the sed script, then. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Bug#263169: loadmodules incomplete
Hi Jens, Jens Schmalzing wrote: Hi, Harald Dunkel writes: the patch [...] looks into /proc/modules (the user space interface for module management) to get a list of loaded modules. This only works if you are building an initrd for a kernel with the exact same module configuration. The module configuration doesn't have to be exactly the same. Please note that we are talking just about the SCSI drivers. mkinitrd always used the currently running kernel to guess the settings for the kernel to install. My patch doesn't change this. You have to rerun mkinitrd if you replace the SCSI controller, for example. Maybe it would help if mkinitrd uses discover to get a list of modules. But discover lists "sata_sil" as an IDE module. There might be new problems. On the other side, the current mkinitrd searches for entries in /proc/scsi and uses 45 lines sed (hardwired into mkinitrd!) to do a mapping to module names. mkinitrd is far from perfect. Nevertheless, it works nicely on a great many systems. No question about that. It contains a lot of know-how. I doubt that /proc/scsi is the right way to guess which modules are loaded. It is, since it contains information about the installed SCSI hardware, not about the loaded drivers. At least for sata_sil and sata_sis it doesn't work, as it seems. Patch the sed script, then. "find /proc/scsi" returns for my PC /proc/scsi /proc/scsi/usb-storage /proc/scsi/usb-storage/2 /proc/scsi/device_info /proc/scsi/scsi even though module sata_sil has been used to mount the root disk. As you see, there is _nothing_ in /proc/scsi indicating that module sata_sil should be loaded. The sed script in mkinitrd cannot do anything about that. Regards Harri
New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hello, I have to update the marvell-pegasos.dpatch patch, and this would thus warrant either a kernel-source upload or an addition of a patch patching the above patch in the powerpc kernel-patch. I have upto now refrained from doing the upload, since the changes there where mostly powerpc specific, but if nothing is going to happen with regard to them nextly, i think it warrants an upload. I am still wondering if it would not have been better to keep those patches in the arch specific package instead of the kernel-source one. Christoph, William, can you comment on those issues ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:40:36PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > I have to update the marvell-pegasos.dpatch patch, and this would thus warrant > either a kernel-source upload or an addition of a patch patching the above > patch in the powerpc kernel-patch. > I have upto now refrained from doing the upload, since the changes there where > mostly powerpc specific, but if nothing is going to happen with regard to > them nextly, i think it warrants an upload. > I am still wondering if it would not have been better to keep those patches in > the arch specific package instead of the kernel-source one. > Christoph, William, can you comment on those issues ? I'd be inclined to push this kind of thing in general to the generic package so long as no generic code is affected. Let me do a closer review and I'll send in another followup. -- wli
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:28:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:40:36PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > I have to update the marvell-pegasos.dpatch patch, and this would thus > > warrant > > either a kernel-source upload or an addition of a patch patching the above > > patch in the powerpc kernel-patch. > > I have upto now refrained from doing the upload, since the changes there > > where > > mostly powerpc specific, but if nothing is going to happen with regard to > > them nextly, i think it warrants an upload. > > I am still wondering if it would not have been better to keep those patches > > in > > the arch specific package instead of the kernel-source one. > > Christoph, William, can you comment on those issues ? > > I'd be inclined to push this kind of thing in general to the generic > package so long as no generic code is affected. Yes, but this means a potential need for new upload of all the kenrel-image packages. Altough it is true that it isn't necessary to always have the latest kernel-source to build. > Let me do a closer review and I'll send in another followup. Ok. My idea was that all thing that are (or are supposed to be) pushed upstream, can go in the kernel-source package. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:28:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'd be inclined to push this kind of thing in general to the generic >> package so long as no generic code is affected. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 03:51:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Yes, but this means a potential need for new upload of all the kenrel-image > packages. Altough it is true that it isn't necessary to always have the latest > kernel-source to build. This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415, anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures' kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:28:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Let me do a closer review and I'll send in another followup. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 03:51:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Ok. My idea was that all thing that are (or are supposed to be) pushed > upstream, can go in the kernel-source package. This would be great. Is it pending in the linux-ppc tree already? -- wli
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > I have to update the marvell-pegasos.dpatch patch, Keep in mind that you must not change patches that have been part of previous uploads. An update has to go in as marvell-pegasos-2.dpatch. > I have upto now refrained from doing the upload, since the changes > there where mostly powerpc specific, but if nothing is going to > happen with regard to them nextly, i think it warrants an upload. Can't the new patch wait till 2.6.8? What problem does it fix? Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: r973 - in trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.7-2.6.7/debian: . patches
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > Modified: trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.7-2.6.7/debian/patch > es/marvell-pegasos.dpatch Let me re-iterate: You must never, ever change dpatch files that have already made it into uploads. Otherwise, you will certainly break kernel-tree. See debian/README.NMU, step 3. Anyway. If you want this and kernel-patch-powerpc built and uploaded, drop me an email and I'll do it tonight. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 02:33:02PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > > > I have to update the marvell-pegasos.dpatch patch, > > Keep in mind that you must not change patches that have been part of > previous uploads. An update has to go in as marvell-pegasos-2.dpatch. Arg, didn't think about that. Well, if the patch replaces the old patch in such a way that there is no interaction with newer patches, this should be no major problem, right ? And since none of the per-arch patches actually handle the per patchlevel thingy in kernel-source, is it really important to make that distinction ? > > I have upto now refrained from doing the upload, since the changes > > there where mostly powerpc specific, but if nothing is going to > > happen with regard to them nextly, i think it warrants an upload. > > Can't the new patch wait till 2.6.8? What problem does it fix? The old patch was trying to read the mac address out of the prom of the mips discovery board. Since we obviously don't have the same prom layout on pegasos, we get 00:00:00:00:00:01 as MAC address, which is not the right thing. The new version of the patch does read the value of the MAC address set by the firmware directly from the chip registers. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:28:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> I'd be inclined to push this kind of thing in general to the generic > >> package so long as no generic code is affected. > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 03:51:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Yes, but this means a potential need for new upload of all the kenrel-image > > packages. Altough it is true that it isn't necessary to always have the > > latest > > kernel-source to build. > > This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415, > anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source > is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to > update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures' > kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future. Not sure i fully follow you here. > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:28:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> Let me do a closer review and I'll send in another followup. > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 03:51:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Ok. My idea was that all thing that are (or are supposed to be) pushed > > upstream, can go in the kernel-source package. > > This would be great. Is it pending in the linux-ppc tree already? Well, the marvell-mm patch is pulled from the -mm tree, and Christoph said it will go upstream. I have no idea what the marvell-pegasos patch status is, i think Christoph will be able to respond better on this one, though i had the impression that he wanted to submit it upstream or something. Both the pegasos and the g4 errata patches should have gone upstream. I posted the pegasos patch on the linuxppc-dev list for review, and it was okeyed by benh, who also said he would submit it (altough directly to Marcello's tree). The same goes for the g4 errata patch, where Nico did a first version, and benh rewrote, and said he would commit. I have no idea what the exact status of those two is though, and i have the feeling that benh has had other stuff in his mind these past days, so maybe he didn't do the commit part of it, not sure. Also, i don't read the bitkeeper commit logs from Marcello's tree, so i cannot check if they where applied or not. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: r973 - in trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.7-2.6.7/debian: . patches
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > > > Modified: trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.7-2.6.7/debian/patch > > es/marvell-pegasos.dpatch > > Let me re-iterate: You must never, ever change dpatch files that have > already made it into uploads. Otherwise, you will certainly break > kernel-tree. See debian/README.NMU, step 3. Yeah, thanks, i had forgotten about this, will fix it later today. Now, you didn't want the powerpc patch to make use of the kernel-tree facility, so what is the real interest of doing it this way ? > Anyway. If you want this and kernel-patch-powerpc built and uploaded, > drop me an email and I'll do it tonight. Let's wait one more day to be sure that other things don't come up. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415, >> anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source >> is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to >> update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures' >> kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Not sure i fully follow you here. There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> This would be great. Is it pending in the linux-ppc tree already? On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, the marvell-mm patch is pulled from the -mm tree, and Christoph said it > will go upstream. I have no idea what the marvell-pegasos patch status is, i > think Christoph will be able to respond better on this one, though i had the > impression that he wanted to submit it upstream or something. > Both the pegasos and the g4 errata patches should have gone upstream. I posted > the pegasos patch on the linuxppc-dev list for review, and it was okeyed by > benh, who also said he would submit it (altough directly to Marcello's tree). > The same goes for the g4 errata patch, where Nico did a first version, and > benh rewrote, and said he would commit. > I have no idea what the exact status of those two is though, and i have the > feeling that benh has had other stuff in his mind these past days, so maybe he > didn't do the commit part of it, not sure. Also, i don't read the bitkeeper > commit logs from Marcello's tree, so i cannot check if they where applied or > not. In Linux, no one ever really knows the exact status of their patches. Anyhow, this sounds good, and like hch has taken care of getting things upstream before I'd even looked once again. =) -- wli
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:57:16AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415, > >> anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source > >> is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to > >> update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures' > >> kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future. > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Not sure i fully follow you here. > > There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new > kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. Ok. Should i go ahead and ask Jens a kernel-source and kernel-patch-powerpc rebuild, or wait for the new security update ? Will this new security update go into 2.6.8 and the release of it is waiting for it ? Should we even be speaking of that publicly here ? > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> This would be great. Is it pending in the linux-ppc tree already? > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, the marvell-mm patch is pulled from the -mm tree, and Christoph said > > it > > will go upstream. I have no idea what the marvell-pegasos patch status is, i > > think Christoph will be able to respond better on this one, though i had the > > impression that he wanted to submit it upstream or something. > > Both the pegasos and the g4 errata patches should have gone upstream. I > > posted > > the pegasos patch on the linuxppc-dev list for review, and it was okeyed by > > benh, who also said he would submit it (altough directly to Marcello's > > tree). > > The same goes for the g4 errata patch, where Nico did a first version, and > > benh rewrote, and said he would commit. > > I have no idea what the exact status of those two is though, and i have the > > feeling that benh has had other stuff in his mind these past days, so maybe > > he > > didn't do the commit part of it, not sure. Also, i don't read the bitkeeper > > commit logs from Marcello's tree, so i cannot check if they where applied or > > not. > > In Linux, no one ever really knows the exact status of their patches. > Anyhow, this sounds good, and like hch has taken care of getting things > upstream before I'd even looked once again. =) Not sure about the marvell-pegasos part of the patch though. We will probably have another set of those patches later anyway, as Nico merges more of the changes in his initial driver that was rejected here into the driver that was accepted. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:57:16AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new >> kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Ok. Should i go ahead and ask Jens a kernel-source and kernel-patch-powerpc > rebuild, or wait for the new security update ? Will this new security update > go into 2.6.8 and the release of it is waiting for it ? Should we even be > speaking of that publicly here ? Marcelo posted a 2.4 prerelease that included fixes for it, so I presume it's okay to mention publicly. I think it's slated for 2.6.8 on the 2.6 side. I'd say to try to piggyback it atop the 2.6.8 release unless that doesn't make sense for some other reason or it looks like it's going to take longer than your patience will last. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:57:16AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> In Linux, no one ever really knows the exact status of their patches. >> Anyhow, this sounds good, and like hch has taken care of getting things >> upstream before I'd even looked once again. =) On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Not sure about the marvell-pegasos part of the patch though. We will probably > have another set of those patches later anyway, as Nico merges more of the > changes in his initial driver that was rejected here into the driver that was > accepted. I guess as long as things are on track wrt. merging it's fine, but I'll defer to hch in general as he seems to have a better handle on this. I'm still interested in getting a look for myself but am rather pressed for time, so if you could send the patches to me in a private reply I'd be much obliged. -- wli
Bug#263753: kernel-image-2.6.7-1-686: mounting cdrom causes kernel panic
Package: kernel-image-2.6.7-1-686
Version: 2.6.7-2
Severity: grave
Justification: causes non-serious data loss
Attempting to mount a CDROM results in the CD spinning for approximately
30 seconds, then the system locks up completely (unresponsive to
keyboard, mouse, and network). The lockup does not occur when a 2.4
series kernel is used (e.g. kernel-image-2.4.18-1-686), and a CDROM can
be mounted sucessfully, but some error messages are logged in
/var/log/syslog when the 2.4.18-1-686 kernel is used:
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: DMA interrupt recovery
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: lost interrupt
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: cdrom_decode_status: status=0xd0
{ Busy }
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd:
cdrom_decode_status:error=0xd0LastFailedSense 0x0d
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: DMA disabled
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: ATAPI reset complete
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: command error: status=0x51 {
DriveReady SeekC
omplete Error }
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: hdd: command error: error=0x50
Aug 3 20:32:55 localhost kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev 16:40
(hdd), sector 11
A similar problem seems to have been reported for
kernel-2.6.6-1-386 (Bug#257542: Kernel panics when cdrom mounted)
Sometimes the only related entries in /var/log/syslog before lockup is:
localhost kernel: hdd: ATAPI 24X CD-ROM drive, 120kB Cache, DMA
localhost kernel: Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20
Occassionally some extra lines also appear:
localhost kernel: hdd: drive_cmd: status=0x51 {DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
localhost kernel: hdd: drive_cmd: error=0x04AbortedCommand
localhost kernel: hdd: irq timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
localhost kernel: hdd: irq timeout:error=0xd0LastFailedSense 0x0d
The CDROM can be used to play audio CD's, but after a long delay, and
the reading speed seems to be much slower than usual. When this is done,
the messages that appear in syslog are:
Output from appropriate /proc entries:
/proc/ide/hdd/model
CD-ROM 24X/AKOx
/proc/ide/hdd/driver
ide-cdrom version 4.61
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8
Versions of packages kernel-image-2.6.7-1-686 depends on:
ii coreutils [fileutils] 5.2.1-2The GNU core utilities
ii initrd-tools 0.1.71 tools to create initrd image for p
ii module-init-tools 3.1-pre5-3 tools for managing Linux kernel mo
-- no debconf information
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:42:46AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:57:16AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new > >> kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Ok. Should i go ahead and ask Jens a kernel-source and kernel-patch-powerpc > > rebuild, or wait for the new security update ? Will this new security update > > go into 2.6.8 and the release of it is waiting for it ? Should we even be > > speaking of that publicly here ? > > Marcelo posted a 2.4 prerelease that included fixes for it, so I > presume it's okay to mention publicly. I think it's slated for 2.6.8 on Ok. > the 2.6 side. I'd say to try to piggyback it atop the 2.6.8 release > unless that doesn't make sense for some other reason or it looks like > it's going to take longer than your patience will last. Ok, so i will ask Jens to make a new upload, and we will ride the 2.6.8 release once it actually happened. Waiting for things is not a good idea at this time. Jens, can you either : o make an upload of kernel-source 2.6.7-4 and another one of kernel-patch-powerpc 2.6.7-5. The powerpc kernel should be of urgency high, so it enters testing quickly. or : o wait until the current powerpc kernel enters testing and then make the upload. I have a preference for the first solution, as the changes of the powerpc kernel are rather minor and should not affect anything outside the pegasos changes, which are well tested. This would also allow for d-i to be in sync between the kernel used to build the d-i initrd's (taken from sid) and the one which is actually installed (taken from sarge). Don't forget to remove the pegasos.diff and g4-errata.diff patches from the powerpc patches before you upload 2.6.7-5. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:47:17PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > > > Well, if the patch replaces the old patch in such a way that there is no > > interaction with newer patches, this should be no major problem, right ? > > It becomes a problem if you have an older revision of kernel-source > installed and wish to get the source tree to the latest revision, > since the contents of a newer revision of kernel-patch-debian do not > apply cleanly. I think the kernel-tree did depend on the exact same version of the kernel-source iand kernel-patch-debian packages, and that Herbert wanted us to depend on the kernel-tree, and not the pure kernel-source package. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: r973 - in trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.7-2.6.7/debian: . patches
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > Yeah, thanks, i had forgotten about this, will fix it later today. It's already fixed. > Let's wait one more day to be sure that other things don't come up. Fair enough. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > Well, if the patch replaces the old patch in such a way that there is no > interaction with newer patches, this should be no major problem, right ? It becomes a problem if you have an older revision of kernel-source installed and wish to get the source tree to the latest revision, since the contents of a newer revision of kernel-patch-debian do not apply cleanly. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > I think the kernel-tree did depend on the exact same version of the > kernel-source and kernel-patch-debian packages, kernel-tree depends on any revision of kernel-source and the latest revision of kernel-patch-debian. Together, this allows one to get the latest revision of the Debian kernel tree. > and that Herbert wanted us to depend on the kernel-tree, and not the > pure kernel-source package. We do this. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > > > I think the kernel-tree did depend on the exact same version of the > > kernel-source and kernel-patch-debian packages, > > kernel-tree depends on any revision of kernel-source and the latest > revision of kernel-patch-debian. Together, this allows one to get the > latest revision of the Debian kernel tree. Sorry, i must be stupid. So what is the problem ? Friendly, Sven Luther
CAN 2004-0415 [linux kernel]
Have you guys seen this advisory yet? It looks rather serious: http://isec.pl/vulnerabilities/isec-0016-procleaks.txt Apparently this is fixed in 2.4.27-rc5 (don't know about 2.6 series): http://lwn.net/Articles/96485/ The fix should probably go into Debian kernels in sarge... regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG public key ID: 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >>> This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415, >>> anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source >>> is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to >>> update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures' >>> kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future. > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: >> Not sure i fully follow you here. > > There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new > kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. I'm just about to upload a new kernel-image-amd64-2.6.7. Could this security update be hurried so I don't have to make 2 uploads? The upload is realy urgent because it needs to go queue/NEW and then get into sarge. So if you can't promise it in the next 24h I will just upload now to get queue/NEW started. MfG Goswin
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new >> kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:47:01PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I'm just about to upload a new kernel-image-amd64-2.6.7. Could this > security update be hurried so I don't have to make 2 uploads? The > upload is realy urgent because it needs to go queue/NEW and then get > into sarge. > So if you can't promise it in the next 24h I will just upload now to > get queue/NEW started. This needs to be done carefully, so just upload now if you feel it's urgent. -- wli
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > So what is the problem ? The problem arises when stuff gets out of sync, i.e. applying the latest revision of kernel-patch-debian to an older revision of kernel-source doesn't result in the latest revision of kernel-source. This was demonstrated nicely by the 2.4 build failure that I fixed. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:19:01PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > > > So what is the problem ? > > The problem arises when stuff gets out of sync, i.e. applying the > latest revision of kernel-patch-debian to an older revision of > kernel-source doesn't result in the latest revision of kernel-source. > > This was demonstrated nicely by the 2.4 build failure that I fixed. Could this not be solved by simply making the kernel-source kernel-tree kernel-patch-debian dependency strict ? After all, there is almost zero chance to have the patches in separate states, since they are built from the same package. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Hi, Sven Luther writes: > Could this not be solved by simply making the kernel-source > kernel-tree kernel-patch-debian dependency strict ? This is equivalent to dropping kernel-tree and kernel-patch-debian altogether. > After all, there is almost zero chance to have the patches in > separate states, since they are built from the same package. In the archive, yes. But a user may choose to put a new kernel-source package on hold once it's installed and upgrade to further revisions using kernel-tree, saving a hell of a lot of download volume. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > Sven Luther writes: > >> Could this not be solved by simply making the kernel-source >> kernel-tree kernel-patch-debian dependency strict ? > > This is equivalent to dropping kernel-tree and kernel-patch-debian > altogether. kernel-tree-2.x.y-z should build exactly the source used for the kernel-image 2.x.y-z and never anything else. A kernel-tree-2.x.y package should build the latest z and kernel-tree-2.x the latest y-z versions. That way users can "apt-get install kernel-tree-2.x" to get the newest kernel source or "apt-get install kernel-tree-2.x.y-z" to get (and keep) a specific one. Kernel patches and modules can then depend on the kernel-tree as closely as they need and restrict the version if they need a minimum revision. I don't see where such a strict Depends would reduce usefullness. >> After all, there is almost zero chance to have the patches in >> separate states, since they are built from the same package. > > In the archive, yes. But a user may choose to put a new kernel-source > package on hold once it's installed and upgrade to further revisions > using kernel-tree, saving a hell of a lot of download volume. The newer kernel-tree should require the nerwer sources. If he doesn't want newer sources he has to set the old kernel-tree on hold. People who install kernel-tree-2.6 should be prepared for lots of downloads of new debian patches and new upstream sources. > Regards, Jens. > > -- > J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! > Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
