Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Oleg Verych wrote: Hallo, Frederik. On 2006-10-10, Frederik Schueler wrote: [] As usual, if someone needs more time for pending changes, drop a line. May i ask, what is general rules to accept changes? you didn't look at the wiki heh http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines For example .19-rc linux kernel has some valuable changes in drivers, that can support more hardware (in my case Realtek gigabit ethernet and Intel SATA, all in one box ;) Is it possible to accept some backports ? the r8169 fixes are all backported afaik. what sata fixes are you pointing too, be more precise? -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3
On 2006-10-31, maximilian attems wrote: [] May i ask, what is general rules to accept changes? you didn't look at the wiki heh http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines Thanks. For example .19-rc linux kernel has some valuable changes in drivers, that can support more hardware (in my case Realtek gigabit ethernet and Intel SATA, all in one box ;) Is it possible to accept some backports ? the r8169 fixes are all backported afaik. what sata fixes are you pointing too, be more precise? OK, it's all seems OK now. (i've used .19-rcX on the new machine, to bring it up; now i've installed 2.6.18-3, rebooted) -- 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)
* Martin Michlmayr wrote: FWIW, Falk Hueffner prepared the following patch which just needs testing: http://people.debian.org/~falk/alpha-no-ev4-directive.patch Included in gcc-4.1 4.1.1ds2-17. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:10:56AM +, Oleg Verych wrote: Hallo, Frederik. On 2006-10-10, Frederik Schueler wrote: [] As usual, if someone needs more time for pending changes, drop a line. May i ask, what is general rules to accept changes? For example .19-rc linux kernel has some valuable changes in drivers, that can support more hardware (in my case Realtek gigabit ethernet and Intel SATA, all in one box ;) Is it possible to accept some backports ? It probably is. We never got to hold the discussion about this during the irc meeting, so i guess once the firmware issue is definitively cleared, we need to hold a new irc meeting, to fix the rules for that. That said, in the current state of affairs, we probably need to drop tg3, acenic, and a couple of GPL sourceless modules from the upcoming 2.6.18 kernel uploads. Not sure what to do about this, should we hold any kernel uploads until the second vote which contains the resolution which we wanted is voted on (presumably 10 days or so from now), upload a pruned kernel, and then revert the pruning if the second resolution passes, or just ignore the whole issue ? To the RMs, will you then now, as you said you would before the vote, allow us to release a kernel which is in direct contradiction of what the resolution recently voted upon says ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3
Hallo, Frederik. On 2006-10-10, Frederik Schueler wrote: [] As usual, if someone needs more time for pending changes, drop a line. May i ask, what is general rules to accept changes? For example .19-rc linux kernel has some valuable changes in drivers, that can support more hardware (in my case Realtek gigabit ethernet and Intel SATA, all in one box ;) Is it possible to accept some backports ? Thanks. -- 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]
Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
* Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-12 22:52]: * 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. FWIW, Falk Hueffner prepared the following patch which just needs testing: http://people.debian.org/~falk/alpha-no-ev4-directive.patch -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- 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)
* Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-12 22:52]: * 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. FWIW, Falk Hueffner prepared the following patch which just needs testing: http://people.debian.org/~falk/alpha-no-ev4-directive.patch Thanks, I'll give it a try. 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, 12 Oct 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: 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. we are awaiting 2.6.18.1 for it. seems a bit delayed still. -- maks -- 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]
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
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]
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]
Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3
Hello, I would like to schedule the upload of linux-2.6 2.6.18-3 for next Thursday, 12th October. Two big issues are still open: - hppa FTBFS - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency according to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2.6.17 builds fine on alpha with gcc-4.1 with the minor changes applied. This needs to be ported to 2.6.18. The firmware issue is still open, too; we will wait for the GRs to be done though, before doing anything in this concern. As usual, if someone needs more time for pending changes, drop a line. Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
