Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
On 8 Apr 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote: include hallo.h * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Apr 08 2006, 09:14:14AM]: On 6 Apr 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote: include hallo.h * Sven Luther [Thu, Apr 06 2006, 08:09:46AM]: On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:08PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote: On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Sven Luther wrote: So, directly using make-kpkg as was the recomended way until now is no more supported ? Recommended by whom? :-) I did not explore the issue in detail, but we By Manoj :), as well as dh_make -k too. make-kpkg or m-a, that does not matter, they basically use the same command line interface introduced by Manoj and slightly refined. What was the slight refinement? Let's see... KPKG_DEST_DIR was the first one, we have discussed that years ago and it was accepted well AFAICS. Right. make-kpkg does pass KPKG_DEST_DIR to the modules. And there are additional targets that m-a-infected rules file provide, used to predict the file location and debug the build environment. I am not sure I understand. Predict which file location? OTOH some things are not implemented, and nobody has asked for them: KPKG_EXTRAV_ARG, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL, ROOT_CMD, UNSIGN_CHANGELOG, UNSIGN_SOURCE, APPEND_TO_VERSION, INT_SUBARCH. The last thing is interesting - I don't exactly know how to deal with crosscompilation. Maybe you have a hint how to reliably establish the the correct environment to build modules consistent with what the user wants to do. I think some people have used the current make-kpkg setup to cross compile kernels, but I have personally never done that (all I have is i386 machines). manoj -- Gary Hart: living proof that you *can* screw your brains out. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion
#include hallo.h * Manoj Srivastava [Sun, Apr 09 2006, 01:54:03AM]: And there are additional targets that m-a-infected rules file provide, used to predict the file location and debug the build environment. I am not sure I understand. Predict which file location? Output file. Example: debian:/usr/src/modules/cdfs$ debian/rules echo-debfile /usr/src/modules/cdfs/../cdfs-2.6.16-1-686_2.4.20.a+2.6.12-2_i386.deb debian:/usr/src/modules/cdfs$ debian/rules echo-vars I've been configured using: - Kernel source of /usr/src/linux - Kernel version of 2.6.16-1-686 - Kernel revision of - C compiler of gcc-4.0 - Make options of - Version is 2.4.20.a+2.6.12-2 - Cosmetic version is 2.4.20.a+2.6.12-2 - Maintainer is Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Package name is cdfs-2.6.16-1-686 - Target directory is /usr/src/modules/cdfs/.. Eduard. -- /me is trying to imagine the Debian project's members trying to agree on an enemy... Open RC bugs. Go to http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php, pick one, hate it to death. Sleep well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.16-6
Hi folks I'd like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.16-6 tomorrow. It includes the update for 2.6.16.2 and fixes a design problem in the modules support. Bastian -- You're dead, Jim. -- McCoy, Amok Time, stardate 3372.7 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
source package for not releasable kernels
Hi folks I'd like to add another source package which contains images which are currently not considered as stable enough for a release. The first images will be the xen kernels which have no stable api yet but should be in unstable. Bastian -- A little suffering is good for the soul. -- Kirk, The Corbomite Maneuver, stardate 1514.0 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#361684: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686: is unuseable on HP OmniBook 4150 on batteries
Package: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686 Version: 2.6.15-8 Severity: normal I installed Debian testing on a HP OmniBook 4150. It works great if the notebook is attached to a power supply. If the notebook is booted when running on batteries the system is almost unuseable. The init process seems to hang right from the start but when you press some keys on the keyboard the system seems to wake up for some seconds and the init process continues bit by bit... I tried to use acpi instead of apm (added the kernel boot option acpi=off apm=on and added apm to /etc/modules) but this was even worse: The system bootet without hammering on the keyboard but the timing was completely broken. The cursor frequency changed wildly depending on system load and the clock was running like crazy (ca. double speed) when opening large applications. I remeber that I had some other Linux version installed on this notebook some years ago and it did not have this problem (but others). I wanted to give it a second chance because rumors said that Linux runs better on older hardware. This does not always seem to be true :-( -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.15-1-686 depends on: ii initramfs-tools [linux-initra 0.59b tools for generating an initramfs ii module-init-tools 3.2.2-2tools for managing Linux kernel mo Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.15-1-686 recommends: pn libc6-i686none (no description available) -- debconf information: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/abort-install-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/abort-overwrite-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/prerm/would-invalidate-boot-loader-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/bootloader-initrd-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/kimage-is-a-directory: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/lilo-initrd-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/old-initrd-link-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/old-dir-initrd-link-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/overwriting-modules-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/depmod-error-initrd-2.6.15-1-686: false * linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/already-running-this-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/initrd-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/depmod-error-2.6.15-1-686: false linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/bootloader-error-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/bootloader-test-error-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/lilo-has-ramdisk: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/create-kimage-link-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/prerm/removing-running-kernel-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/failed-to-move-modules-2.6.15-1-686: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/preinst/elilo-initrd-2.6.15-1-686: true linux-image-2.6.15-1-686/postinst/old-system-map-link-2.6.15-1-686: true -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#100421: FWD: todays news
Hows it been going? As of April'06 our UNIV has started a work knowledge credential program. You have been accepted to receive one in the field of your choice. Our work experience / life experience diplomas are the same that we give our Full Time students. If you are still interested then reach us at: 1 800 420-3467 Bye, Gregorio Scofield -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361674: problems with using mdrun /dev
Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.59b hi... if you're going to use mdrun /dev and launch all arrays during the initrd then you should also include mdadm.conf -- because otherwise you may end up starting arrays on the wrong minors... or even worse, if someone is using partitioned md then you'll miss the partitions entirely. if you include mdadm.conf these problems will probably be avoided. however i'm not so keen on running all the arrays from initrd for the following reasons: - if i plug in former md drives from another system for recovery or reuse purposes the initramfs-tools initrd will try launching the raids it finds... which is almost guaranteed to cause preferred minor conflicts. including mdadm.conf may or may not help this depending on device ordering. - mdrun /dev makes it impossible for me to have an array which *isn't* started at boot... there are several failure recovery scenarios where i want an array which i start manually or not at all (i.e. start it read-only) because i need to avoid any writes at all, and especially need to avoid md resync. - mdrun /dev starts resync at boot time -- which can thrash the system with i/o and slow down the boot significantly... and it's too early to have /etc/sysctl.conf override the speed_limit_max to throttle the recovery in order to get past startup. anyhow... i'd really recommend starting just the root raid... and including mdadm.conf in case the user is trying to do root on partitioned md. thanks -dean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#349354: initramfs-tools - kernel -udev dependency loop
This should have been fixed by udev 0.085-1 and initramfs-tools 0.53, so unless somebody will report more problems soon I will close the bug. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
note on 2.4 is deprecated
I just wanted to comment on the 2.4 is deprecated thing. Just because the kernel team is muttering[1] about not supporting the 2.4 kernel does not mean that Debian as a project has decided not to support users using their own versions of this kernel. As Steve notes in #361024, we have to support 2.4 anyway to support users upgrading from sarge. Some other good reasons for the project to continue to support 2.4 include: - There is still hardware that is only supported by various 2.4 kernels. For example, I have various arm boards and mips machines that are running Debian with, 2.4, non-debian kernels, which still work fine (until this bug). Dropping support for 2.4 will simply make this hardware useless, since Debian is the only reasonable distribution that runs on it, and since doing the work to make 2.6 run on it varies from far too much effort to nearly impossible (think binary 2.4 only kernel modules). - We can't all upgrade to 2.6 trivially. I have production machines that are colocated thousands of miles from me, and upgrading them to 2.6, while scheduled, involves a plane trip, and considerable expense. - Making debian unstable not work in a chroot on a stable machine that happens to be running 2.4 is not a good idea. Consider that Debian has a lot of machines running stable with 2.4 + chroots. Also, it would make remote cross-distribution debtakeovers of machines running some horrible ancient version of redhat difficult. - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I think, three major kernel versions. PS, Petr Salinger's glibc test package fixes #361024 for me on my 2.4 machine. Unfortunatly, since that machine is responsible for the d-i i386 daily builds, which involve copying glibc into the d-i images, and since I do not want to ship d-i images containing an unofficial glibc, I've had to take those builds down until this is resolved in a glibc in unstable. Hope it's resolved soon.. -- see shy jo [1] Or at least some of them are, it's not clear to me if the d-d-a mail captured the consensus of the team. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: source package for not releasable kernels
Hello, On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:08:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: I'd like to add another source package which contains images which are currently not considered as stable enough for a release. The first images will be the xen kernels which have no stable api yet but should be in unstable. Good idea, UML images could be added here, too. Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.16-6
Hello, On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 12:14:21PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: It includes the update for 2.6.16.2 and fixes a design problem in the modules support. m68k support is still missing. Anyone knows what's up with cts? Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: source package for not releasable kernels
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 08:58:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: Hello, On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:08:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: I'd like to add another source package which contains images which are currently not considered as stable enough for a release. The first images will be the xen kernels which have no stable api yet but should be in unstable. Good idea, UML images could be added here, too. Currently the user-mode-linux package ships UML images (just one). May I ask what's the status of your (as in kernel-team) work toward UML images creation? I tried to put some effort on that some time ago but nobody answered my request for help[1] back then and AFAICT some modification is needed to integrate UML build with the debian-kernel scripts. Two major issues I found were make-kpkg creates linux-uml-foo.deb and KPKG_ARCH not being used as argument for make-kpkg --arch. [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/01/msg00751.html Thanks -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pending linux-2.6 changes
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:58:05AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: Some changes for trunk: - Remove duplicated files in debian/arch. Bastian -- It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted. -- Yarnek of Excalbia, The Savage Curtain, stardate 5906.5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: note on 2.4 is deprecated
Not that my opinion means much, but... On Sunday 09 April 2006 12:14, Joey Hess wrote: *snip* - Debian's userland has *always* supported at least the previous major kernel version, and most often the previous two, or sometimes I think, three major kernel versions. I think it could be easily argued that the last three major revisions of the kernel are 2.6.16, 2.6.15, and 2.6.14. wt -- Warren Turkal Research Associate III/Systems Administrator Colorado State University, Fort Collins
My unstable doesn't boot anymore
This morning i have updated my Debian Sid but that left my system in an unbootable state. After loading various modules, with apparent no errors, the following messages followed (hand written, so excuse me if they are not 100% close to reality): Begin: running /scripts/local-premount... Attempting manual resume Done. mount: mounting /dev/hda2 on /root failed: no such device Begin: running /scripts/log-bottom... Done. Done. Begin: running /scripts/init-bottom... mount: Mounting /root/dev on /dev/.static/dev failed: no such device or directory Done. mount: Mounting /sys on /root/sys failed: no such file or directory mount: Mounting /proc on /root/proc failed: no such file or directory Target filesystem doesn't have /sbin/init Then a BusyBox shell open up. If helps, i have seen the following modules inside /proc/modules: ide_cd cdrom ide_disk e100 mii ohci1394 ehci_hcd uhci_hcd usbcore piix generic ide_core thermal processor fan As you can see the modules to mount my ATA (not sata) drive are in place. I have tryed to mount root manually: mount /dev/hda2 / but it fails. Here is some details of my system: linux-image-2.6.16-1-686 2.6.16-5 udev 0.089-1 initramfs-tools 0.59b grub 0.97-7.1 klibc-utils 1.3.3-1 The machine is a Sony Vaio VGN-B3XP notebook, a tipical Pentium-M with i855 chipset. I haven't filed a bug since i can't understand what had caused the problem. The update that today aptitude had proposed me was not too big (the previous was less that a week ago) and the packages to upgrade seemed to me not so critical: no new kernel, no initramfs-tools. I remember that there was an upgrade for grub and klibc. I can't remember if there was also a new udev, but looking from packages.qa.debian.org, it is possible. After rebooting with a kernel 2.6.15 (that i keep for safety), i have tryed regenerating the initramfs: dpkg-reconfigure -p low linux-image-2.6.16-1-686 But this haven't solved the problem at all. I haven't seen bugreports or messages on the list about similar problem: either it is a problem specific of my system or this weekend many user has preferred to go the sea. ;-) Have someone any suggestion? Regards. Cesare. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My unstable doesn't boot anymore
Cesare Leonardi wrote: As you can see the modules to mount my ATA (not sata) drive are in place. I have tryed to mount root manually: mount /dev/hda2 / but it fails. I wrote / but i wanted to say /root. The correct command: mount /dev/hda2 /root fails with this error: cramfs: wrong magic mount: Mounting /dev/hda2 on /root failed: Invalid argument I have done some test and if i try to mount specifing the fs type (-t ext3) it succeed and now if i type exit the system boot correctly. So it seems to be a problem in udev that fails to mount the root filesystem, probably in /scripts/local. In the meantime i've learned that aptitude has a nice log and it confirmed me that in the last update udev has passed from 0.88-2 to 0.89-1. Since the problem is critical, i'll file a bug to udev immediately, hoping that my considerations are correct. But am i really the only with this problem? Regards. Cesare. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your Message To scoug-general
Your message to the list scoug-general has been rejected. You are not a member of the list. For help on subscribing to the list, please send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word help in the body of the message. Your humble mailing list software, Steward -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
