[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
> priority extra.
I agree it should be included. We can change the priority so it's not
automatically installed and warn people that it is experimental/might break
things in dselect's descript
Hi Joey and *...
I have noticed something in 2.2.0* that has potential to break scripts that
add net routes. If I don't include "netmask " in the route commands,
it tells me "SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument".
Relevent versions:
basically everything is recent slink, except
kernel-image-2.2.0-pre1-i58
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
> priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
> 2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
> be installed by default.
Hi
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
Regards
--
Robbie Murray
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
> >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
> >>
> >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people
> do.
---end quoted text---
That's what dselect is for...you only download that which you
are going to install. By adding the 2.2.0 kernel and or source
as an extr
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> > very stable, but it will have incompati
Allan M. Wind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
> Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
> with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs
Brian White wrote:
> Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package.
Aha! Well I agree with it WRT images.
--
see shy jo
> > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
> > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me".
>
> Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
> don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 07:18:08PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> Yup. I don't have any worries about that. My small concern is people
> expecting it to be supported because it came with the distribution. As
> I've said, I don't have very strong convictions about a source package.
As I said sever
> > > > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
> > > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
> > > > problems.
> > >
> > > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the
> > > reasons the "extra" priority does exis
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default
> > kernel
>
> Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles
> the k
Brian White wrote:
> Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
> people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me".
Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
don't see how this could break a system. Actually bui
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
But that was changing the default kern
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:13:32PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> Can you put 2.2 at least in potato ? I am using here 2.1.131 but didn't
> try to upgrade to 2.2.preX as I have understood that there were some
> problems. Are the problems solved ? Can I safely grab the kernel, build
> it with kerne
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
> Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
> 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
What's the problem with ppp? I ru
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
> knows.
>From my experience, yes. After all we also have packages that won't work
with kernel 2.0.* like pciutils.
> I think we should include it, as a service to pe
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:43:27AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink
> and 2.2.0-final work perfectly until someone pointed out that
> /usr/sbin/procinfo complains. Been running 2.1.1xx in production
> with frozen for months.
But th
Quoting Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> I also was unable to get ppp or diald to work with a later 2.1.x kernel in
> a hamm system.
>
> Documentation/Changes says the required version of ppp is 2.3.5 and hamm,
> slink and potato all have this version.
>
> Bob
I have just performed 3 di
On Jan 22, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched by a
>user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users go through
>a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is more than offset by
>reducing the amount of problems en
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
> > > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
> > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
> > > problems.
> >
> > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the
> > reasons
> > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
> > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
> > problems.
>
> This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the
> reasons the "extra" priority does exist.
>
> According to th
> > > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
> > > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
> > > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
> >
> > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
> > people to "install
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
> Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
> people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
> problems.
This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the
reasons the "extra" priority doe
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
> I'll share that fantasy. As linux becomes more and more mainstream, it's
> going to be even more difficult to dream. Of course, the reality is that
> most users don't need the 2.2 kernel anyway.
unfortunately (maybe) for Debian, very few inexperienced u
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
> > I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
> > slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
>
> Disclamers are of marginal use. It will ap
> Brian> make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would
> Brian> be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then
>
> Heh, thats the idea. :-)
>
> Brian> wonder why things don't work.
>
> Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink
> and 2.2.
> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
> > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
> > kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say tha
At 11:32 PM 1/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
>> > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
>> > least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
>>
>> I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with an
hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Ivan E. Moore II, Stardate 210199.1558:
> >
> > Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your "no new code" rule?
>
> probably... :(
I'd say this should only apply to a not-more-then-a-month-freeze :)
until potato get's out debian would get kinda out-of-date. On the othe
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
> The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
> knows.
Well, assuming it's an improvement on the pre-release ones, we can make a
pretty good guess :)
> I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
> downlo
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:00:50AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed,
> > right?
>
> Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion.
>
> > You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on t
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
>> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
>>
>Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
>current pppd that would be compatible with the new k
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> > least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
>
> I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
> of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help
> > though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone)
>
> Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel
> docs, the
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
> Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
> 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
---end quoted text---
I think it'
"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would
Brian> be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then
Heh, thats the idea. :-)
Brian> wonder why things don't work.
Little things that few notice, apparently
Joseph Carter wrote:
(B>
(B> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
(B> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
(B> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
(B> > would be used on the boot disks, etc, but thi
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
> would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
> kernel 2.2 ea
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:43:23PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
> On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> > > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> > > least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
> >
> > I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgr
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
I'm using nothing but packages from sl
> > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> > very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
>
> No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think including a kernel
> image woul
> It's "Changes" and yes I have read it:
>
> master:/home/wind# pppd -v
> pppd: unrecognized option '-v'
> pppd version 2.3 patch level 5
>
> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
>
Real Question (not a snipe): I
Brian White wrote:
[kernel image]
> No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think includi
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help
> though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone)
Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel
docs, there is no such thing as a SB 16 clone. There are a l
On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> > least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
>
> I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
> of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed,
> right?
Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion.
> You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the
> command-line, for instance.
I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resour
On 1999-01-21 19:32, John Goerzen wrote:
> While the internals did change radically, the only thing most people need
> concern themselves with is that the /dev/lp? number changed by one digit. I
> hardly call that a "radical" change
Well, it of course depends on how you define radical. I had tw
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
>
> I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports
> to use
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
> would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
> kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
> changes to the basic setup.
Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS
sound modules and they failed h
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
> changes to the basic setup.
Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS
sound modules and they failed horribly. I've never seem them like this
before. Luckily I hav
> 2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
> least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel
source's Documents/CHA
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
> On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
> > changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
> > say yes, it is stable with Debian.
>
On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote:
> All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
> changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
> say yes, it is stable with Debian.
Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
2.2
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:32:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
> > knows.
>
> All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
> changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
> say yes
How close to 3.0 does the 2.2 kernel get Debian?
- Bruce
--
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
> The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
> since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a grea
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
> > The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
>
> The kernel is s
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
>I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
>download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was
>released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
>may be problems, it might eat your computer... w
> I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
> download the whole thing, but attach a note saying "As 2.2 was
> released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
> may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible
> for anyth
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
> The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
knows.
I think we
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a great "technical" feature of our distribution that might give us some bragging rights over the other distros.
-B
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
> would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
> kernel 2.2 ea
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports
to use. The 2.2 ke
65 matches
Mail list logo
