Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On 16 Aug 2007, at 12:39 pm, Thomas Evans wrote: i don't need any of the 2.6.23 functionality - I was just really trying the 2.6.23 kernel to make sure nothing major was broken with it. The only other thing I know of which is "broken" with it is both autofs and amd automounters; this is

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Hello, On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:03:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > > The SRM-HOWTO says netbooting with "aboot" is broken: there's a way to > > make a netbootable (using bootp) image using the kernel source tree > > code under arch/

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: > Suggestions to you on how to proceed: > (...) > - install linux-libc-dev from unstable, and build the package against that > instead of the linux-kernel-headers included in etch. That would have been my recommendation as well. I used linux-libc-dev 2.6.21-6 for my aboot

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: It's been uploaded to unstable now. Thanks again to Bob for the testing! Thanks Bob - finally got around to it yesterday - also worked for me with 2.6.23-rc3. I will try to test tonight or tomorrow - is there a .deb already, or should I build it? I went to the link loo

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:21:05AM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: > Tried to rebuild on stable and got: > gcc -I/home/sacha-utf/work/aboot-1.0~pre20040408/include -D__KERNEL__ > -mcpu=ev4 -Os -Wall -fno-builtin -Wcast-align -mno-fp-regs -ffixed-8 > -fno-builtin-printf -Os -Wall -mno-fp-regs

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Tried to rebuild on stable and got: gcc -I/home/sacha-utf/work/aboot-1.0~pre20040408/include -D__KERNEL__ -mcpu=ev4 -Os -Wall -fno-builtin -Wcast-align -mno-fp-regs -ffixed-8 -fno-builtin-printf -Os -Wall -mno-fp-regs -fno-builtin -I/home/sacha-utf/work/aboot-1.0~pre20040408/include -D__KERNEL

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:52:04PM -0400, Tom Evans wrote: > Please help me understand - no patched version will go to > experimental/unstable? It's been uploaded to unstable now. Thanks again to Bob for the testing! > I will try to test tonight or tomorrow - is there a .deb already, or > sho

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:49:01 -0700 > "SL" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SL> SL> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:31:45PM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: >> Previous time I tried not tested patch to aboot (not from Steve) it >> end up with major breackage: >> http://lists.deb

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:36:36PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > > > Was the issue with using "aboot" for net booting addressed with this patch > > > set? I've not had need of that functionality, but I can probably

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:36:36PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > > Was the issue with using "aboot" for net booting addressed with this patch > > set? I've not had need of that functionality, but I can probably rig up a > > test if there's a reason to do so... > > The patch I

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:36:36PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > Was the issue with using "aboot" for net booting addressed with this patch > set? I've not had need of that functionality, but I can probably rig up a > test if there's a reason to do so... The patch I applied was strictly for fixing th

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:31:45PM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: > Previous time I tried not tested patch to aboot (not from Steve) it > end up with major breackage: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2002/12/msg00074.html > So what I am talking about? Steve, if you want somebody to test

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Tom Evans wrote: > Please help me understand - no patched version will go to > experimental/unstable? > > I will try to test tonight or tomorrow - is there a .deb already, or > should I build it? > I went to the link looking for a .deb - which is why I backed off - > figured someone would ask t

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Please help me understand - no patched version will go to experimental/unstable? I will try to test tonight or tomorrow - is there a .deb already, or should I build it? I went to the link looking for a .deb - which is why I backed off - figured someone would ask the questions that I was afra

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:01:38 -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > > Huh??? I sent you the build logs: never got an ACK. > > http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Whoops! Thanks, Julien... I missed the post in all the dreck that passes for signal (as opposed to

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Previous time I tried not tested patch to aboot (not from Steve) it end up with major breackage: http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2002/12/msg00074.html So what I am talking about? Steve, if you want somebody to test something you should assure him/her that it should work. Why don't you boot y

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:01:38 -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:08:54AM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > > > > And how will we boot 2.6.23 then??? > > > > How should I know? I asked for testing in > >

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:08:54AM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > > And how will we boot 2.6.23 then??? > > How should I know? I asked for testing in > , and apparently > nobody who's concerned about 2.6.23 yet

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:08:54AM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:22:00PM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: > > > And here we have another patch > > http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/1abcbf6f1 > > b5a7b91/ > > That's the same patch (and

RE: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:22:00PM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: > > And here we have another patch > > > http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/1abcbf6f1 > b5a7b91/ > > That's the same patch (and AFAICT, the same message). > > > which one is going to experimental

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:22:00PM +0400, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote: > And here we have another patch > http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/1abcbf6f1b5a7b91/ That's the same patch (and AFAICT, the same message). > which one is going to experimental/unstable? Neither

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

And here we have another patch http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/1abcbf6f1b5a7b91/ which one is going to experimental/unstable? > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:38:53 -0700 > "SL" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SL> SL> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:50:06

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:05:34 -0700 > "SL" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SL> SL> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:59:09AM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > Please have a look at the latest package available from >> > .

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:59:09AM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Please have a look at the latest package available from > > . This does need tested, because > > the patch posted by Richard is muddled with unrelated changes that aren't

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:50:06PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > The aboot patch in the referenced l-k posting did the trick. My Alpha > is up and running on 2.6.23-rc3 as I type this... > > I'm still willing to test an official updated aboot package when it's > available, but the value added at this

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: > Please have a look at the latest package available from > . This does need tested, because > the patch posted by Richard is muddled with unrelated changes that aren't > needed for building in Debian, so I'm not 100% sure that I've gr

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:50:06PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > The aboot patch in the referenced l-k posting did the trick. My Alpha > is up and running on 2.6.23-rc3 as I type this... > I'm still willing to test an official updated aboot package when it's > available, but the value added at this p

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

The aboot patch in the referenced l-k posting did the trick. My Alpha is up and running on 2.6.23-rc3 as I type this... I'm still willing to test an official updated aboot package when it's available, but the value added at this point is probably minimal if the Debian source mods (for packaging)

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Steve Langasek wrote: > FWIW, the issue with 2.6.23rc booting deserves its own bug in the BTS. Just added: see #438431. Feel free to reclassify the severity if I understated it. -- --- Bob Tracy | "Eagles may soar

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Bob Tracy wrote: > Jay Estabrook wrote: > > If you can't wait for that, you can always use BOOTP, which bypasses > > aboot entirely... :-) > > Unfortunately, that may be the only way to get past this problem in > the near term :-(. Just for grins and giggles, I retrieved the source > package for

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:17:33AM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote: > The posted reply was: > > try http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/14/259 > As it turns out, the problem was actually introduced with 2.6.23-rc1: > 2.6.22 works fine. > The l-k people say aboot needs a patch. Question to Steve L. et al: is > a

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Jay Estabrook wrote: > If you can't wait for that, you can always use BOOTP, which bypasses > aboot entirely... :-) Unfortunately, that may be the only way to get past this problem in the near term :-(. Just for grins and giggles, I retrieved the source package for aboot-0.9b-3 and tried to build

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Thomas Evans wrote: > > i don't need any of the 2.6.23 functionality - I was just really trying the > 2.6.23 kernel to > make sure nothing major was broken with it. Seems OK on the few machines I've tried: LX164, ES45, AS1200. I'm interested in the CFS stuff, see if it makes any difference in t

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

i don't need any of the 2.6.23 functionality - I was just really trying the 2.6.23 kernel to make sure nothing major was broken with it. I *could* use bootp I suppose, but that would require a tftp service someplace - suppose that's not so hard. I will probably just wait for an update, or fin

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

Tom Evans wrote: > I was trying to boot 2.6.23-rc1 a few weeks ago. Asked about the newer > binutils - thought that may have been the reason it failing. > > Glad you hit the kml instead and found an answer (and glad I wasn't the > only person seeing a problem with the 2.6.23-rcX series). > It was

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

I was trying to boot 2.6.23-rc1 a few weeks ago. Asked about the newer binutils - thought that may have been the reason it failing. Glad you hit the kml instead and found an answer (and glad I wasn't the only person seeing a problem with the 2.6.23-rcX series). It wasn't a binutils issue, but

Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)

I originally posted to linux-kernel w.r.t. 2.6.23-rcX not booting: > Unfortunately, I can't say where the bug was introduced, as this is > the first kernel I've tried on my Alpha since 2.6.22-rc7. Best guess > is somewhere between .23-rc1 and .23-rc2, based on changes to files in > arch/alpha/boot