Hello,
maximilian attems, le Wed 26 Mar 2008 14:58:57 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > Ah, so since Lenny's d-i is supposed to use 2.6.24, speakup won't make
> > it into it :/
>
> as otavio said we gonna release with > 2.6.24
> for debian 2.6.24 stuff would ha
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ah, so since Lenny's d-i is supposed to use 2.6.24, speakup won't make
> it into it :/
as otavio said we gonna release with > 2.6.24
for debian 2.6.24 stuff would have to go through the stable releases.
7 out of 9 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to fi
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > 2.6.24 window is closed anyway.
>> >
>> > You mean the upstream or the Debian?
>>
>> debian
>
> Ah, so since Lenny's d-i is supposed to use 2.6.24, speakup won't make
> it into it :/
Beta2 is probably going to be released with 2.6.24 but I gues
Le Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100
Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrivait :
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Frans Pop, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 21:05:30 +0100, a écrit :
> >> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> > I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for
maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 23:27:14 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:43:47PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 20:13:30 +0100, a écrit :
> > >
> > > once it is in next
> >
> > "in next"?
>
> next is the linux tree of things that are r
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Mario Lang wrote:
>> >> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
>> >> image packages of course.
>> >
>> > Ah, can't it be a separate package?
>>
>> Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6 where all the extra mod
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:43:47PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 20:13:30 +0100, a écrit :
> >
> > once it is in next
>
> "in next"?
next is the linux tree of things that are ready for the next
merge window aka 2.6.26 now.
> > 2.6.24 window is closed any
Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 21:40:24 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > It is not part of the upstream kernel.
>
> OK. I misunderstood that. My apologies.
No problem.
> Anyway, it still needs to be included in linux-2.6 and l-e-m before we can
> really dis
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:39:54PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> make $(cat allmodules.mk) SUBDIRS=$PWD -C /some/where/linux-whatever
First: s/SUBDIRS/M/.
Second:
| $ make -C /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.24-1-powerpc M=$(pwd) $(cat allmodule.mk)
| make: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> It is not part of the upstream kernel.
OK. I misunderstood that. My apologies.
Anyway, it still needs to be included in linux-2.6 and l-e-m before we can
really discuss inclusion in the installer.
Having it in l-m-e should not be a problem for u
maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 20:13:30 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:50:01PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:39:54 +, a écrit :
> > > Apply patches/kernel-integration-2.6.24-source.patch to the main kernel
> > > source to GPL-expo
Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 20:44:03 +0100, a écrit :
> > The idea is not to compile speakup built into the kernel, but just as a
> > module, and then it doesn't need to be integrated to the kernel build
> > system,
>
> Compiling it into the kernel is not what I'm talking about. It definitely
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:29:56 +0100, a écrit :
> > (Please don't CC me on list mail.)
>
> Then tell your mailer to use followup-to :)
That's an unofficial (or at least fairly recent) header that unfortunately
my MUA does not support.
How
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:50:01PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:39:54 +, a écrit :
> > Apply patches/kernel-integration-2.6.24-source.patch to the main kernel
> > source to GPL-export 4 symbols,
>
> Note: by that, I mean to pick that patch into the reg
Hello,
Otavio Salvador, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 15:06:58 -0300, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> >> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> >>
> >> linux
Hello,
maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:31:03 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> > >> Samuel Thibault <[
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:39:54 +, a écrit :
> Apply patches/kernel-integration-2.6.24-source.patch to the main kernel
> source to GPL-export 4 symbols,
Note: by that, I mean to pick that patch into the regular linux-2.6
kernel. That patch is already in the -mm tree actually.
Sa
Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:29:56 +0100, a écrit :
> (Please don't CC me on list mail.)
Then tell your mailer to use followup-to :)
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
> > it in d-i.
>
> Why would you
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Please don't CC me on list mail.)
>
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
>> it in d-i.
>
> Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
> m
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> >> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> >
(Please don't CC me on list mail.)
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
> it in d-i.
Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
module? It just does not make any sense to me.
Anyw
Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:46:34 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Mario Lang wrote:
> > >> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> > >> image packages of course.
> > >
> > > Ah, can't it be a separate package?
> >
> > Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>>
>> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Mario Lang wrote:
> >> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> >> image packages of course.
> >
> > Ah, can't it be a separate package?
>
> Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6 where all the extra modules belong?
> Seems logical to work speakup in
Hello,
Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frans Pop, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 21:05:30 +0100, a écrit :
>> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
>> > 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough h
Frans Pop, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 21:05:30 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
> > 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
> > speakup to be compiled as a module, w
(No need to CC me, please just mail the debian-boot list.)
On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> > image packages of course.
>
> Ah, can't it be a separate package?
> (speakup can now be compiled fully independ
On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
> 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
> speakup to be compiled as a module, would it be ok to include speakup in
> the standard images, as a
Hello,
I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
speakup to be compiled as a module, would it be ok to include speakup in
the standard images, as a module which would be auto-loaded through a
kerne
30 matches
Mail list logo
