On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:26:39PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> If you don't have the underlying devices there RAID autodetection
> will not work.
Well, if you have no devices, you cant detect them. However, on boot you
most likely do have the devices.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:32:16AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> I believe the kernel raid1 autodetection only works if raid1 is
> compiled into the kernel.
>
> In anycase, initrd images generated from mkinitrd in Debian do not
> autodetect.
It is possible to invite the autodetection from initrd usi
Matthew Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 18:41, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>> Where I'm working, we have Debian stable deployed on a number of boxes. For
>> hardware support reasons, we've had to grab newer kernels from testing, and
>> have been reasonably successful at not dragg
Simple.
Just take the kernel-source-2.4.34.tar.bz2 tar ball out of the sid
system and recompile using make-kpkg under woody, using the apporiate
config file
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 18:41, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Where I'm working, we have Debian stable deployed on a number of boxes. For
> har
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IIRC, There is a parameter to mdadm (--scan?) that could be used for
> this, but when I asked the initrd maintainer I was given a good reason
> why it was not used (sorry; I can't remember what this was now; it might
> simply be that the mdadm code is unrel
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > This is distinct from the autodetection in the kernel that is capable of
> > automatically scanning all harddisks on all busses to find RAID devices.
>
> Why can't you use the kernel autoconfig or does that only work with
>
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 02:02:10PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The recent versions of the package have significant problems if you want to
> > convert to or from devfs. The Debian mkinitrd has become too complex to
> > manage so I have chosen not to b
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 02:02:10PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> The recent versions of the package have significant problems if you want to
> convert to or from devfs. The Debian mkinitrd has become too complex to
> manage so I have chosen not to bother.
This seems strange, perhaps the process
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:02, Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's sad. initrd saved my bacon more than once. ;-) If you like to
Initrd broke my systems more than once.
The recent versions of the package have significant problems if you want to
convert to or from devfs. The Debian mk
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:11:50PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> What is needed for initrd-tools? I've given up on using initrd's for
> kernels I compile.
That's sad. initrd saved my bacon more than once. ;-) If you like to
compile vanilla kernels, either find the Debian cramfs-initrd patch or
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:11:50PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 08:35, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:08:53PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > I presume I can lower the dependencies on things like modutils and
> > > > whatnot down to
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 08:35, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:08:53PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > I presume I can lower the dependencies on things like modutils and
> > > whatnot down to the versions that are in stable with no ill-effects?
> >
> > It only de
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:08:53PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I presume I can lower the dependencies on things like modutils and whatnot
> > down to the versions that are in stable with no ill-effects?
>
> It only depends on coreutils|fileutils, so there's no problems in that regard.
What a
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:59:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, I was wondering how to go about taking the source package for
> > > 2.4.23-686 (and the SMP version) and bac
#include
* Andrew Pollock [Fri, Dec 05 2003, 03:41:14PM]:
> Is it as simple as taking the source package and building it in a stable
> pbuilder chroot, or is there more black magic involved with kernel packages?
AFAIK you need at least updated modutils and procps. And you should use
the default
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:32, "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, last week I compiled a 2.4.23 kernel on my "unstable" desktop,
> created a kernel-image package with make-kpgp, and it didn't
> install on a plain woody machine. The "depmod" part failed.
>
> On the 'stable' machin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:30, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:59:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > So, I was
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:30, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:59:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, I was wondering how to go about taking the source package for
> > > 2.4.23-686 (and
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:59:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I was wondering how to go about taking the source package for
> > 2.4.23-686 (and the SMP version) and backport them to stable?
>
> Why not just use a machin
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:41, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I was wondering how to go about taking the source package for
> 2.4.23-686 (and the SMP version) and backport them to stable?
Why not just use a machine running unstable to do the compile?
I use unstable machines to compile
20 matches
Mail list logo
