Processed: tagging 362064
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21 > tags 362064 pending Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without asking There were no tags set. Bug#358397: initramfs-tools: Fails to install Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > I would like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.18-3 for next > Thursday, 12th October. Now we have the desired date, nothing happened to the following issues. > Two big issues are still open: > - hppa FTBFS > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? Bastian -- Totally illogical, there was no chance. -- Spock, "The Galileo Seven", stardate 2822.3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061012 12:41]: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > Two big issues are still open: > > - hppa FTBFS > > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? I don't think it is an option to ship Debian without hppa and alpha kernels. So, the only two options seem to me: a) someone fixes these issues, or b) we ship with what we have in etch now, that is 2.6.17. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > So, the only two options seem to me: > b) we ship with what we have in etch now, that is 2.6.17. This is no option. Bastian -- Captain's Log, star date 21:34.5... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#392592: linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley: ia64 misses some scripts when building external modules
Package: linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley Version: 2.6.18-2 Severity: normal Hi, When trying to compile external modules on Debian's 2.6.18 kernel (and .17 too, and maybe others) on IA64/McKinley ItaniumII, the Makefile in arch/ia64/ misses some scripts: make -C /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/ M=$PWD /bin/sh: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags: No such file or directory /bin/sh: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/check-gas: No such file or directory make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley' CC [M] /home/bgoglin/test/test.o [...] The "script/" link in the 2.6.18-1-mckinley's headers looks fine: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts -> ../../../linux-headers-2.6.18-1/arch/ia64/scripts But the destination does not exists in /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1/arch/ia64/. toolchain-flags is used by arch/ia64/Makefile to define CPPFLAGS, which looks pretty important to me. check-gas checks whether gas is recent enough, which looks pretty important too. I tried to copy those missing scripts from the kernel source into linux-headers-2.6.18-1/arch/ia64/scripts, but I get some other warnings then: make -C /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/ M=$PWD gcc-4.1: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/check-segrel.S: No such file or directory objdump: '/tmp/out19575': No such file /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags: line 19: [: !=: unary operator expected gcc-4.1: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/check-text-align.S: No such file or directory gcc-4.1: no input files readelf: Error: '/tmp/out19575': No such file gcc-4.1: /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/check-gas-asm.S: No such file or directorygcc-4.1: no input files objdump: '/tmp/out19593.o': No such file /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley/arch/ia64/scripts/check-gas: line 10: [: !=: unary operator expected Copying the entire arch/ia64/scripts/ directory from a source tree seems to fix all the issues. So I guess one package should bring this directory, either linux-headers or the linux-kbuild. Thanks, Brice -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: ia64 Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-mckinley Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley depends on: ii gcc-4.1 4.1.1-13 The GNU C compiler ii linux-headers-2.6.18-12.6.18-2 Common header files for Linux 2.6. ii linux-kbuild-2.6.18 2.6.18-1 Kbuild infrastructure for Linux 2. linux-headers-2.6.18-1-mckinley recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#289690: Data corruption?
Just hit what I'm fairly sure is the same bug. Same errors logged. Was attempting to use ' perl -pi -e "s!--!---!" ' to update some files on a Windows 2000 server from a Sarge desktop. Attempts to workaround by using cifs immediately after the problem occurred (I did reboot, but otherwise I was immediately into trying it with CIFS) results in "input/output" errors logged against files that had previously been operated on. So this may not be a suitable workaround, or it may be necessary to fix data corruption issues before using CIFS. At some point in the procedure the files were truncated to size 0. Data is now restored from a known good source. I will try a kernel from backports so I can get on with my work. Was this error introduced into Sarge since release, as I'm fairly sure this had worked in the past? The whole of Samba/SMB support in Sarge is very problematic, but this is the first time I've had it eat data. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Draft position statement of the kernel team about the ongoing vote
Hi all, ... I have drafted the following document on our wiki page : === There are currently two proposals being voted on, with a call for vote done hurriedly and without consideration for the position statement of the kernel team, nor for the fact that the below proposal was still being worked on. The kernel team has the following problems with the actual being voted on GR. Proposal 1, is entitled : "Choice 1: Release Etch even with firmware" is highly misleading, because the proposal means actually that : 1. We will not release as part of etch those firmwares removed in etch, which include popular drivers used for installation as tg3 and acenic. 2. We will not release as part of etch those firmwares which are non-distributable, which includes all those drivers with non-distributable firmwares, including those placed de-facto under the GPL but which are sourceless. 3. We will not release as part of etch, those firmwares which are DFSG non-free, which includes all remaining firmwares under discussion. As thus, the short title of the proposal placed on the ballot, is actually saying the contrary of what the proposal actually means. This is a severe breach of thrust between the ballot and the voter, and will mean another renewal of the infamous "cosmetical changes GR", and as thus the kernel team puts out a call to everyone participating in the vote, to recast their votes, favoring "Further Discussion" over the other options. === http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-c26dd537094f806af748898fb0c8c512c99e4be4 This is a serious issue, and i am very very displeased at Manoj, for having done that, and not waited for our consensual proposal to be on the ballot, as well as using such a misleading short title, and thus lying to the voters about the content of the proposal. At this point, i don't think we can consider the result of the hurried vote as valid, and in any case, it will not do what we wanted, even despite the excuses set by the RMs that they will overlook this badly worded proposal, shall it win. I await comments on this topic, and if i get none by friday evening, i will post the above position statement widely. Frederik, i urge you to rescind your acceptance of Manoj's amendment ASAP, since it is clear you where mislead as to the content of it and its consequences. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:41:00PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > I would like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.18-3 for next > > Thursday, 12th October. > > Now we have the desired date, nothing happened to the following issues. > > > Two big issues are still open: > > - hppa FTBFS > > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? hppa FTBFS does not look like something worth disabling the port for, it appears that compiler version check is just broken. What needs to be done for alpha? Does it FTBFS with gcc 4.1? Anybody can run a build and make the log available? I'm willing to have a look at those. It appears that paer is accessible, but escher (the only DD-accessible alpha, AFAIK) is in lock down. One RC issue was recently uncovered on sparc too: 2.6.18 does not boot on rather popular SunBlade 100/150 machines (392078). Upstream is aware of the problem and I'm going to work on it myself in the next few days. Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: >> I would like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.18-3 for next >> Thursday, 12th October. > > Now we have the desired date, nothing happened to the following issues. > >> Two big issues are still open: >> - hppa FTBFS >> - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? Is this ext3 corruption issue also on the kernel team's radar? http://lwn.net/Articles/203536/ http://kernelslacker.livejournal.com/55309.html Apologies if it's a known and/or fixed issue. best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Processed: linux-2.6 FTBFS on hppa is still there
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 389296 - pending Bug#389296: linux-2.6_2.6.18-1(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: Missing build-dep? Tags were: pending Tags removed: pending > found 389296 2.6.18-2 Bug#389296: linux-2.6_2.6.18-1(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: Missing build-dep? Bug marked as found in version 2.6.18-2. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#387498: Unable to reproduce - mips/mipsel? 2.4/2.6 kernel difference?
reassign 387498 linux-2.6,libc6 On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:02:58AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > I am able to reproduce this bug, but on mipsel only. I am using a 2.6.17 > 64-bit kernel. I have made some more tests, I am actually able to reproduce it on both mips and mipsel, but only on 2.6 kernels (32- or 64-bit), ot on 2.4 kernels. My guess is that the bug is in the kernel. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#387498: Unable to reproduce - mips/mipsel? 2.4/2.6 kernel difference?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 387498 linux-2.6,libc6 Bug#387498: mipsel: system() hangs when compiled with -pg (gprof profiling) Bug reassigned from package `libc6' to `linux-2.6,libc6'. > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:02:58AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > > I am able to reproduce this bug, but on mipsel only. I am using a 2.6.17 Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > > 64-bit kernel. Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > I have made some more tests, I am actually able to reproduce it on both Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > mips and mipsel, but only on 2.6 kernels (32- or 64-bit), ot on 2.4 Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. Too many unknown commands, stopping here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: tagging 389296
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 389296 + pending Bug#389296: linux-2.6_2.6.18-1(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: Missing build-dep? There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#369448: Can you still reproduce this with 2.6.18 from unstable ?
Hi, ... Just wondering if you can still reproduce this bug ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382472: initramfs-tools: really confused when initrd file has been removed
Followup-For: Bug #382472 Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.82~bpo.1 Hi, 13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> rm initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 14:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 Cannot create version 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686: already exists zsh: exit 1 update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 15:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -u -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 sha1sum: /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686: No such file or directory /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 has been altered. Cannot update. 16:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 - Line 14 is simply false, the file has been deleted on line 13. - Shouldn't line 15 exit with >0 and at least suggest update-initramfs -c, since there is "no such file or directory"? - Line 16 creates the initrd sucessfully. I used yaird, if that makes a difference. Regards, Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#248234: Could you try the current etch beta3 installer, or daily builds ?
Hi, ... Could you try the current etch beta3 or daily build installer ? Also, it would be helpful if you gave more info about your hardware, since it seems to be lacking in the bug report. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#252402: marked as done (kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep: "could not chdir to =D:No such file or directory")
Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:59:00 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closing, since there is no more 2.4.25 -prep kernel in the archive, and i remember this being fixed ages ago. has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep Version: 2.4.25-4 Severity: important Tags: sid Hi, I am running Debian Sid on an old IBM RS6000 43P-140 with a 233 Mhz CPU (604ev), the exact machine name is "PReP IBM 43P-140 (Tiger1)". Since the initial installation I am running Kernel 2.4.21, when I try to upgrade to package 2.4.25-powerpc-prep I get these error messages: --- cut --- bluemoon:~# apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Suggested packages: kernel-doc-2.4.25 The following packages will be upgraded: kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 180 not upgraded. 26 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0B/2349kB of archives. After unpacking 455kB of additional disk space will be used. Selecting previously deselected package kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep. (Reading database ... 27420 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep 2.4.25-4 (using .../kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep_2.4.25-8_powerpc.deb) ... The directory /lib/modules/2.4.25-powerpc still exists. Continuing as directed. Unpacking replacement kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep ... could not chdir to =D:No such file or directory dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 2 dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... could not chdir to =D:No such file or directory dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep_2.4.25-8_powerpc.deb (--unpack): subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 2 could not chdir to =D:No such file or directory dpkg: error while cleaning up: subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 2 Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep_2.4.25-8_powerpc.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) bluemoon:~# - cut --- My boot partition is 22 MB in /dev/sda1 (FS Type "PPC PReP Boot"), the packages themselves are in /dev/sda2. Thanks in advance, kind regards, Joerg. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.4.21 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages kernel-image-2.4.25-powerpc-prep depends on: pn kernel-modules-2.4.25-powerpcNot found. -- no debconf information --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- As the title says. --- End Message ---
RFC: position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote.
The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under vote are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. The proposal made by Josselin (Choice 2) will have a hard time to pass, as it needs 3:1 supermajority. It gives a longer term exception for firmwares beyond the etch release, which we believe not being necessary, and furthermore, it is an amendment to the original proposal from Steve, now withdrawn. The proposal originally from Frederik, but amended by Manoj (Choice 1), has serious issues, and doesn't correspond to the wish of the kernel team, as expressed by the position statement at [1] which followed the meeting of the kernel team about the firmware issue. This proposal is titled : "Choice 1: Release Etch even with firmware" but this is highly misleading, since the proposal states : 1. It forces us to not release as part of etch those firmwares removed in sarge, which include popular drivers used for installation as tg3 and acenic. (Point 3.) 2. It means illegal to distribute firmwares will have to go (good), altough it is silent about the sourceless GPL ones. 3. It means we will not distribute firmwares with non-DFSG free licenses. This is highly confusing, because the distinction is made on the licenses, and not on the actual freeness, and it thus favours firmwares under free licenses, but not respecting the terms of the licenses, over those firmwares whose upstream author has clarified their licensing, like broadcom did for the tg3 license. For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [2], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote "Further Discussion". On behalf of the Debian Kernel Team, Friendly, Sven Luther [1] - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-98e7641feaea08b775f4d5c58d071b77ff172c90 [2] - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-bf5edfa54af87d70d2f39f434703848b55569eef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
* Jurij Smakov wrote: > What needs to be done for alpha? Does it FTBFS with gcc 4.1? Yes. > Anybody can run a build and make the log available? Tomorrow. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061012 12:41]: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > > Two big issues are still open: > > > - hppa FTBFS > > > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? > I don't think it is an option to ship Debian without hppa and alpha > kernels. > So, the only two options seem to me: > a) someone fixes these issues, or > b) we ship with what we have in etch now, that is 2.6.17. The gcc-4.0 build-dependency is not new in 2.6.18, the current kernel in testing has the same issue. And I can see no reason to treat this as RC. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#392065: linux-image-2.6.18-1-powerpc: System crash after a "bcm43xx: Controller restarted"
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 392065 important Bug#392065: linux-image-2.6.18-1-powerpc: System crash after a "bcm43xx: Controller restarted" Severity set to `important' from `critical' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#392065: linux-image-2.6.18-1-powerpc: System crash after a "bcm43xx: Controller restarted"
severity 392065 important thanks On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 03:54:54AM +0200, HellComes wrote: > When I'm using this kernel on a notebook (iBook G4) with WPA-encrypted wifi > network working fine until I lose wifi > connection and a few seconds later I can't do nothing because the system is > frozen. > After reboot the system in the syslog I found these lines just before the > syslogd: restart > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: wlan0: transmit timed out > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Controller RESET (TX timeout) ... > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Chip ID 0x4306, rev 0x3 > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Number of cores: 5 > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Core 0: ID 0x800, rev 0x4, vendor > 0x4243, enabled > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Core 1: ID 0x812, rev 0x5, vendor > 0x4243, disabled > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Core 2: ID 0x80d, rev 0x2, vendor > 0x4243, enabled > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Core 3: ID 0x807, rev 0x2, vendor > 0x4243, disabled > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Core 4: ID 0x804, rev 0x9, vendor > 0x4243, enabled > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: PHY connected > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Detected PHY: Version: 2, Type 2, > Revision 2 > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Detected Radio: ID: 2205017f (Manuf: > 17f Ver: 2050 Rev: 2) > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Radio turned off > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Radio turned off > Oct 10 03:22:59 Tyrael kernel: bcm43xx: Controller restarted As this is a hardware-specific problem, it doesn't fit the normal RC-severity requirements for the kernel packages. FWIW, I've had problems with bcm43xx on i386 as well, which I think are attributable to the youth of the driver. I'm assuming you don't actually think it's a good idea to *disable* the bcm43xx driver in the kernel packages to avoid shipping with this bug, so that would make it an important bug that we should try to fix, rather than an RC bug that must be fixed before release. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian Installer] General release plan for RC1
Hi Frans, Glad to see you back up and about on Debian lists. :) On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:40:08AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > GENERAL STATUS > == > The most important work planned for RC1 has been done and the installer in > general works well, although some finishing touches and testing are still > planned in the run up to Release Candidate 1 of the installer. > I don't have a hard planned release date yet, but it will probably be > first week of November. Detailed planning and updates will be sent to > d-boot and d-release lists. > General status and preparations for Etch RC1 can be found on [1]. > As it looks now RC1 will be released with kernel 2.6.17, unless 2.6.18 is > ready to migrate to testing in time for us to make the switch before the > release. If not, we plan to switch to 2.6.18 ASAP after RC1 and release > RC2 ASAP after 2.6.18 does migrate to testing. Is this release schedule coming into better focus yet as we get closer? Any proposed timeline with milestones for the debian-booters to consider? Will there be a call for testing on d-d-a before the actual release, to provide better feedback going into the RC and increasing the chances that we can get it in one shot? I would very much like to see 2.6.18 in testing for rc1. Looking at the bug page, I don't really see any indication that 2.6.18 is a regression overall wrt 2.6.17, so aside from sorting out the hppa build failure, I would say that 2.6.18 is already ready for us to push in. Cc:ed to debian-kernel for comment. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#392078: sunblade100 prtconf
sunblade100 output of prtconf -p -v attached System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Memory size: 256 Megabytes System Peripherals (PROM Nodes): Node 0xf002a6e4 energystar-v3: idprom: 01830003.ba04a4ab.03ba.04a4ab82.... scsi-initiator-id: 0007 reset-reason: 'POR' breakpoint-trap: 007f #size-cells: 0002 model: 'SUNW,375-0096' name: 'SUNW,Sun-Blade-100' clock-frequency: 04fca6ea banner-name: 'Sun Blade 100 (UltraSPARC-IIe)' device_type: 'upa' stick-frequency: 0054c563 Node 0xf002d834 name: 'packages' Node 0xf004bc30 name: 'SUNW,builtin-drivers' Node 0xf005550c disk-write-fix: name: 'deblocker' Node 0xf00559e8 name: 'disk-label' Node 0xf0056320 iso6429-1983-colors: name: 'terminal-emulator' Node 0xf005a2c4 name: 'obp-tftp' Node 0xf0061ed8 source: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:' name: 'dropins' Node 0xf006df94 name: 'kbd-translator' Node 0xf002d8a4 bootargs: 00 bootpath: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:a' mmu: fff73ae0 memory: fff73ce0 stdout: fff5b808 stdin: fff479c0 stdout-#lines: 0022 name: 'chosen' Node 0xf002d910 version: 'OBP 4.0.45 2001/02/08 14:33' model: 'SUNW,4.0' aligned-allocator: relative-addressing: name: 'openprom' Node 0xf002d9a0 name: 'client-services' Node 0xf002da48 test-args: diag-passes: '1' pci-probe-list: '7,c,3,8,d,5,13' local-mac-address?: 'false' fcode-debug?: 'false' ttyb-rts-dtr-off: 'false' ttyb-ignore-cd: 'true' ttya-rts-dtr-off: 'false' ttya-ignore-cd: 'false' silent-mode?: 'false' scsi-initiator-id: '7' oem-logo: oem-logo?: 'false' oem-banner: oem-banner?: 'false' ansi-terminal?: 'true' screen-#columns: '80' screen-#rows: '34' ttyb-mode: '9600,8,n,1,-' ttya-mode: '9600,8,n,1,-' output-device: 'screen' input-device: 'keyboard' load-base: '16384' auto-boot?: 'true' boot-command: 'boot' diag-file: diag-device: 'net' boot-file: boot-device: 'disk net' use-nvramrc?: 'false' nvramrc: security-mode: 'none' security-password: security-#badlogins: '0' mfg-mode: 'off' diag-level: 'max' diag-switch?: 'false' error-reset-recovery: 'boot' name: 'options' Node 0xf002dab8 screen: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' keyboard: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],3/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' dload: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1:,' net: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1' cdrom2: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:f' cdrom1: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:f' cdrom: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:f' disk: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0' disk3: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0' disk2: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0' disk1: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0' disk0: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0' ide: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' floppy: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dma/floppy' ttyb: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],2e8' ttya: '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],3f8' name: 'aliases' Node 0xf0041c30 reg: ...1000 available: .0ff1c000..8000..0fe44000..000d4000..0fe3..0001..0f00..00d2a000....0effe000 name: 'memory' Node 0xf0042214 translations: .fff7..0001.8000.0ff700b6..fff6a000..6000.8000.0ff620b6..fff68000..2000.8000.0effe0b6..fff5e000..6000.8000.0ff580b6..fff5c000..2000.8000.0ff520b6..fff5a000..2000.8000.0ff4c0b6..fff58000..2000.81ff.f18e..fff54000..4000.8000.0fe400b6..fff52000..2000.81fe.028e..fff4e000..2000.81ff.028e..fff4a000..4000.8000.0ff380b6..fff46000..4000.8000.0ff2e0b6.
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:11:06AM -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > >> I would like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.18-3 for next > >> Thursday, 12th October. > > Now we have the desired date, nothing happened to the following issues. > >> Two big issues are still open: > >> - hppa FTBFS > >> - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? > Is this ext3 corruption issue also on the kernel team's radar? > http://lwn.net/Articles/203536/ > http://kernelslacker.livejournal.com/55309.html > Apologies if it's a known and/or fixed issue. > best regards, That would seem to warrant an RC bug? Please, if you know of such issues that should prevent pushing the current 2.6.18 packages into testing, file them as bugs of the appropriate severity. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
Steve Langasek writes: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061012 12:41]: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > > > Two big issues are still open: > > > > - hppa FTBFS > > > > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency > > > > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)? > > > I don't think it is an option to ship Debian without hppa and alpha > > kernels. > > > So, the only two options seem to me: > > a) someone fixes these issues, or > > b) we ship with what we have in etch now, that is 2.6.17. > > The gcc-4.0 build-dependency is not new in 2.6.18, the current kernel in > testing has the same issue. And I can see no reason to treat this as RC. some weeks ago, I asked what compiler version would be used for kernel compiles; I got the impression that the kernel team did want to switch to 4.1. Even if the kernel cannot be built with 4.1, it would be nice to have bug reports. I'm not aware of any alpha related reports, although it's not my pet arch. I'm still planning not to build g++-4.0 from the 4.0 sources, now that all packages are built using 4.1 or using 3.4 as a fallback. We'll need the 4.0 source anyway to build libgcc2 on hppa and glibc on the hurd. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382472: initramfs-tools: really confused when initrd file has been removed
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:16:39PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > Hi, > > 13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> rm initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > 14:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > Cannot create version 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686: already exists > zsh: exit 1 update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > 15:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -u -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > sha1sum: /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686: No such file or directory > /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 has been altered. Cannot update. > 16:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/boot> update-initramfs -c -k 2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-1-xen-vserver-686 > > > - Line 14 is simply false, the file has been deleted on line 13. > - Shouldn't line 15 exit with >0 and at least suggest update-initramfs -c, > since there is "no such file or directory"? > - Line 16 creates the initrd sucessfully. please post: ls -l / /boot cat /etc/kernel-img.conf thx -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061013 06:43]: > Even if the kernel cannot be built with 4.1, it would be nice to have > bug reports. I'm not aware of any alpha related reports, although it's > not my pet arch. Of course. > I'm still planning not to build g++-4.0 from the 4.0 sources, now that > all packages are built using 4.1 or using 3.4 as a fallback. We'll > need the 4.0 source anyway to build libgcc2 on hppa and glibc on the > hurd. Good. That means that switching alpha to 4.1 would "just" be nice anyways. Thanks. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#392078: cannot boot 2.6.18-1 on sunblade 100
On 13/10/2006, at 3:32 PM, Jurij Smakov wrote: Thanks. One more thing: at boot time a line like this is displayed: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0: Clock regs at 01fff100 Can you tell me (and send to the bug too), how this line looks for non-working and working kernels? Presumably the address at the end of the line should be different. There is nothing like the line you described in either bad or good kernels here. For the not-working kernel: SILO Version 1.4.12 boot: Allocated 8 Megs of memory at 0x4000 for kernel Uncompressing image... Loading initial ramdisk (1051222 bytes at 0xF80 phys, 0x40C0 virt)... / Remapping the kernel... done. Booting Linux... NVRAM: Low battery voltage! CLOCK: Clock was stopped. Kick start That is all. The block cursor sits on the same line 2 spaces after the "start" I will attach dmesg output from the good kernel in case it helps... happy to do anything else that might help too thanks jim PROMLIB: Sun IEEE Boot Prom 4.0.45 2001/02/08 14:33 Linux version 2.6.16-1-sparc64 (Debian 2.6.16-12) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.4 20060422 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-2)) #2 Thu May 4 12:36:43 PDT 2006 ARCH: SUN4U Ethernet address: 00:03:ba:04:a4:ab On node 0 totalpages: 31988 DMA zone: 31988 pages, LIFO batch:7 DMA32 zone: 0 pages, LIFO batch:0 Normal zone: 0 pages, LIFO batch:0 HighMem zone: 0 pages, LIFO batch:0 CPU[0]: Caches D[sz(16384):line_sz(32)] I[sz(16384):line_sz(32)] E[sz(262144):line_sz(64)] Built 1 zonelists Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda2 ro PID hash table entries: 1024 (order: 10, 32768 bytes) Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 262144 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 131072 bytes) Memory: 253416k available (2032k kernel code, 696k data, 136k init) [f800,0ff24000] Calibrating delay loop... 1001.47 BogoMIPS (lpj=2002944) Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized SELinux: Disabled at boot. Capability LSM initialized Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 checking if image is initramfs... it is Freeing initrd memory: 979k freed NET: Registered protocol family 16 PCI: Probing for controllers. PCI: Found SABRE, main regs at 01fe SABRE: Shared PCI config space at 01fe0100 SABRE: DVMA at c000 [2000] PCI quirk: region 0800-083f claimed by ali7101 ACPI PCI quirk: region 0600-061f claimed by ali7101 SMB PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[ 8] map[0] to INO[23] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[ c] map[0] to INO[06] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[ c] map[0] to INO[1c] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[ c] map[0] to INO[24] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[ d] map[0] to INO[0c] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 0] slot[13] map[0] to INO[0f] PCI0(PBMA): Bus running at 33MHz isa0: [dma -> (floppy) (parallel)] [power] [serial] [serial] ebus0: [flashprom] [eeprom] [idprom] power: Control reg at 01fe02000800 ... powerd running. usbcore: registered new driver usbfs usbcore: registered new driver hub audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled) audit(1160755649.192:1): initialized VFS: Disk quotas dquot_6.5.1 Dquot-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order 0, 8192 bytes) Initializing Cryptographic API io scheduler noop registered io scheduler anticipatory registered (default) io scheduler deadline registered io scheduler cfq registered Activating ISA DMA hang workarounds. atyfb: 3D RAGE XL (Mach64 GR, PCI-33) [0x4752 rev 0x27] atyfb: 8M SDRAM (1:1), 29.498928 MHz XTAL, 235 MHz PLL, 83 Mhz MCLK, 63 MHz XCLK Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 160x64 atyfb: fb0: ATY Mach64 frame buffer device on PCI rtc_init: no PC rtc found [drm] Initialized drm 1.0.1 20051102 ttyS0 at MMIO 0x1fe020003f8 (irq = 7246432) is a 16550A ttyS1 at MMIO 0x1fe020002e8 (irq = 7246432) is a 16550A isa bounce pool size: 16 pages RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 16384K size 1024 blocksize loop: loaded (max 8 devices) Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00alpha2 ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx rtc_sun_init: Registered Mostek RTC driver. usbmon: debugfs is not available usbcore: registered new driver usbhid drivers/usb/input/hid-core.c: v2.6:USB HID core driver mice: PS/2 mouse device common for all mice NET: Registered protocol family 2 IP route cache hash table entries: 2048 (order: 1, 16384 bytes) TCP established hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 65536 bytes) TCP bind hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 65536 bytes) TCP: Hash tables configured (established 8192 bind 8192) TCP reno registered TCP bic registered NET: Registered protocol family 1 NET: Registered protocol family 17 ohci_hcd: 2005 April 22 USB 1.1 'Open' Host Controller (OHCI) Driver (PCI) ohci_hcd :00:0c.3: OHCI Host Controller ohci_hcd :00:0c.3: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1 ohci_hcd :00:0c.3: irq 9,7e4, io mem 0x1ff0200 usb usb1: configuration
