"Vince Mulhollon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the problem is a lack of cultural understanding.
I appreciate your interpretation.
Though I think I could give a even lengthier explanation to argue
against. :)
Thanks,
--
http://dim.sourceforge.net ... Debian Chinese Input Me
On 04/22/2001 05:40:30 PM zhaoway wrote:
>> Hey, hey, it's for you! Do you guys really expect all Debian users ==
>> Debian develoepers? What about k12 users? What about, say Donald
>> E. Knuth? Do you really think that trivial cubersome kernel compiling
>> ability is necessary for all to enjoy?
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:27:30AM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > Only in /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include/linux: modversions.h
> > Only in /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include/linux: version.h
>
> Hello!
>
> This seems to scream to me to simply split the common files out to a
>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:37:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > mean by "module builders [...] especially those outside Debian". The
> > people from alsa who do not use Debian (How would they use a
> > debian-package?) or debian-users who no debian-de
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm talking about people like VMWare, i.e., people who distribute binary
> only modules.
I meant to say binary modules.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.ap
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mean by "module builders [...] especially those outside Debian". The
> people from alsa who do not use Debian (How would they use a
> debian-package?) or debian-users who no debian-developers (= no
> @debian.org email-adress)? Pointers to documentation
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Are these *really* necessary? Who does need them, people who compile
>>
>> Yes. By all module builders, especially those outside Debian.
>>
>> > external kernel-modules (alsa, lm-sensors, ...)? Can't these
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 07:24:13PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:18:33AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Now, it doesn't take a genius, to see how this will cascade. For each
> > optimization of a kernel, there will be a full kernel-image.deb. Then, for
> > the boot disks, th
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 07:25:10PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:18:14PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >
> > (A lot of) Netfilter stuff also doesn't go in the kernel without patching
> > the kernel proper. Plus, your own hacks don't work too well, especially when
> > it's to
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not much:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] eb]$ diff -rq /usr/local/src/linux-2.2.19/include
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include
> Only in /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include: asm # symlink to asm-$arch
> Only in /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include: config
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:18:14PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> (A lot of) Netfilter stuff also doesn't go in the kernel without patching
> the kernel proper. Plus, your own hacks don't work too well, especially when
> it's to existing code.
Anybody can package up a the netfilter source + patch
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:18:33AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> Now, it doesn't take a genius, to see how this will cascade. For each
> optimization of a kernel, there will be a full kernel-image.deb. Then, for
> the boot disks, there will be the individual kernel, and the modules to match
> it(
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:00:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I do that too; what's the oldconfig step needed for though? I just
> jump straight to menuconfig and it always seems OK.
Basically, when you patch in a new kernel version, it screams through your
.config, and throws up any new kerne
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 07:41:03AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are these *really* necessary? Who does need them, people who compile
>
> Yes. By all module builders, especially those outside Debian.
>
> > external kernel-modules (alsa, lm-sensors,
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:00:02PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> What *is* the difference between eg. kernel-headers-2.4.3-686 and
>> kernel-headers-2.4.3-k6?
> not much:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] eb]$ diff -rq /usr/local/src/linux-2.2.19/include
> /usr/sr
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:59:42PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > I compile my own kernels, and have for a long time. But it's a pain to
>
> in that case, a far better solution is a package containing a bunch
> of pre-generated kernel .config files, plus a menu script to copy
>
> call it ker
The old way, we had one kernel, optimized for the lowest denonimation of ia32
machine. Ie, i386. We then modified the drivers that were compiled into the
kernel.
Now, using an initrd, we no longer need to compile different variations of
drivers and modules into and out of the kernel. We can co
> this actually *helps* new users.
Why?
I can see your suggestion help mirrors (The trade-off is
questionable.) But I can't see why it could help users.
I certainly don't think that make users (even make the task easier) to
compile a kernel can do help to most of the users (That is *not* a
task
> I agree that it is not too hard to compile your own kernel.
> I never use Debian's standard kernel-image packages (except on
> my 68K Mac, where it takes too long to recompile).
Hey, hey, it's for you! Do you guys really expect all Debian users ==
Debian develoepers? What about k12 users? What a
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 03:36:02PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:33:43AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > is there such a thing as cross-compilation for the kernel?
>
> Yes - porting to new architectures would be nearly impossible
> otherwise.
yep, true...but is it deep
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:33:43AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> is there such a thing as cross-compilation for the kernel?
Yes - porting to new architectures would be nearly impossible
otherwise.
kernel-package even supports cross-compilation IIRC.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:00:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I do that too; what's the oldconfig step needed for though? I just
> jump straight to menuconfig and it always seems OK.
i find it easier to deal with new config questions. it uses your old
answers as input for any questions, and on
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:23:04PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > in that case, a far better solution is a package containing a bunch
> > of pre-generated kernel .config files, plus a menu script to copy
> > [...]
> > that would be one package, taking maybe a few hundred kilobytes total.
> > call it
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:16:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> We clearly disagree, so let's leave it at that.
no.
> > just as you stated you'd be filing bug-reports to get 2.2.17 kernel
> > image removed from the archive, i'll be filing "package should not
> > exist" bugs against all the excess k
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:00:02PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> What *is* the difference between eg. kernel-headers-2.4.3-686 and
> kernel-headers-2.4.3-k6?
not much:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] eb]$ diff -rq /usr/local/src/linux-2.2.19/include
/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.2.19/include
Only in /usr/src/ke
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:59:42PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> btw, if you've been compiling your own kernels for a long time then you
> probably do somthing similar to what i do - copy in the .config from the
> previous version and run "make oldconfig" before "make menuconfig" and
> make-kpkg. i
Hi there,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 07:38:18AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I think you've missed the point. We're not talking about what is going
> to be the standard kernel image for woody. We're discussing the way the
> kernel images are constructed on i386, which happens to only apply to
> 2.4 at
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Independent of whether or not Xu uploads a dozen pre-compiled kernels,
> it would be nice to have their configs readily available. I would
> appreciate an easy way of seeing what tweaks are recommended to
> optimize for an i686 machine.
They already
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are these *really* necessary? Who does need them, people who compile
Yes. By all module builders, especially those outside Debian.
> external kernel-modules (alsa, lm-sensors, ...)? Can't these
> people simply install kernel-source, extract it to /tm
David Spreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:16:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> With the latest release, it's now down to about 80MB. In any case, we
>> never release with more than one old kernel, nor with experimental kernels,
>> so that would be 1 x 2.2.x, and at most 2
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:47:36PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Nonono, we should automate it as much as possible. I envision a
> global Makefile somewhere, and a ports/ directory, and a
> make-world.sh, and... And then Debian GNU/BSD! Yay!
I've been spending a lot of time starting to design a po
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:44:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> just as you stated you'd be filing bug-reports to get 2.2.17 kernel
> image removed from the archive, i'll be filing "package should not
> exist" bugs against all the excess kernel-image bugs.
Alternatively, you could bring it up wit
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> P.S. Is a seperate kernel-headers package really necessary for
>> every CPU type? What are the differences between the headers in,
>> say kernel-headers-2.4.3-686 and kernel-headers-2.4.3-686-smp?
>> Or kernel-headers-2.4.3-k6 and kernel-headers-2.4.3
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:47:36PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Herbert Xu (2001-04-22 22:23:04 +1000) :
> > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > that would be one package, taking maybe a few hundred kilobytes
> > > total. call it kernel-helper and make it depend on
> > > kernel-packa
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:23:04PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > in that case, a far better solution is a package containing a bunch
> > of pre-generated kernel .config files, plus a menu script to copy
> > your choice to the right subdirectory (e.g. /us
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:59:42PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:12AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> > > Unless you care about performace. Which is the main reason to use
> > > different packages for each C
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:59:42PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:12AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> > > Unless you care about performace. Which is the main reason to use
> > > different packages for each C
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:16:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> With the latest release, it's now down to about 80MB. In any case, we
> never release with more than one old kernel, nor with experimental kernels,
> so that would be 1 x 2.2.x, and at most 2 x 2.4.x.
This sucks. Hopefully not only in
Herbert Xu (2001-04-22 22:23:04 +1000) :
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > that would be one package, taking maybe a few hundred kilobytes total.
>
> > call it kernel-helper and make it depend on kernel-package.
>
> > problem solved.
>
> But why not take this one step further, l
Previously Roland Mas wrote:
> Call me stupid if you like, but I think "all goes into modules"
> won't work.
It does if you use initrd.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL
Herbert Xu (2001-04-22 14:15:50 +1000) :
> Yes you should. But then most people would be happy to have all of
> the above as modules.
I used to put plenty of things in modules. I even put ext2 in a
module, three or four times. Wham, kernel panic at boot. Okay, I
thought I wouldn't do the same
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in that case, a far better solution is a package containing a bunch
> of pre-generated kernel .config files, plus a menu script to copy
> your choice to the right subdirectory (e.g. /usr/local/src/linux or
> wherever)...then run "make menuconfig" or "make
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:44:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> i disagree with you primarily because the cost of having so many
> kernel-image packages is too high.
That is your opinion, and I disagree with it.
> that cost is over 100MB per kernel version, that's several hundred MB
> with se
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:12AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> > Unless you care about performace. Which is the main reason to use
> > different packages for each CPU type.
>
> I compile my own kernels, and have for a long time. But it
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:38:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > if the user needs a more specific kernel (e.g. with SMP or compiled
> > for a P2 or a K6 or whatever) then they can use manoj's excellent
> > kernel-package (one of debian's best features, IMO) to build a
> > custom kernel.
>
> This is
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair enough. But what about the difference between machine-dependant
> optimisation? Perhaps the difference between i386 and PIII is so minimal
Please read the earlier messages in this thread. This has already been
covered.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is o
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:38:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> IMHO, with the current 2.4.* setup, the difference between compiling your
> own and using the preexisting one is so minimal that most people will be
> able to use the precompiled one rather than building their own.
Fair enough. But wh
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:37:16AM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> use the distro kernels' config as a starting point.
Which wins me how much, over just starting from the defaults? You
still have to go over all the options, and wait for the kernel to
compile. It's still a lot easier to break stuff man
> > > I should build my own kernel, right?
> >
> > Sure, you're a computer geek. But remember we don't expect our
> > users to be all computer elites. No, they're no dummies. Think
> > about scientists, etc. who just simply don't have that much enough
> > time sometimes to make oneself be familia
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:12AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> > Unless you care about performace. Which is the main reason to use different
> > packages for each CPU type.
>
> I compile my own kernels, and have for a long time. But i
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote:
> Unless you care about performace. Which is the main reason to use different
> packages for each CPU type.
I compile my own kernels, and have for a long time. But it's a pain
to go through all the poorly-documented options and takes quit
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:22:33PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> > I should build my own kernel, right?
>
> Sure, you're a computer geek. But remember we don't expect our users
> to be all computer elites. No, they're no dummies. Think about
> scientists, etc. who just simply don't have that much enough
> > This is exactly our disagreement. My position is that it is well
> > within our capabilities to make this unnecessary. And you
> > disagree with that which is fine with me.
[snip]
> I should build my own kernel, right?
Sure, you're a computer geek. But remember we don't expect our users
t
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 09:14:37PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> This is about choice. I want to compile my sound card's driver into
> the kernel. I want to compile bttv, however, as a module. I also want
> IDE as a module, but I want support for my particular scsi card (and
> only that scsi car
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:38:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is exactly our disagreement. My position is that it is well within
> our capabilities to make this unnecessary. And you disagree with that
> which is fine with me.
It was recently calculated that there are over 2000 kernel option
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:26:37PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:13:57PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > You're ignoring our main disagreement. Which is whether most people
> > should use precompiled kernel images or recompile them.
>
> no, i'm not.
>
> i keep on trying
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:13:57PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> You're ignoring our main disagreement. Which is whether most people should
> use precompiled kernel images or recompile them.
>
> If you took my position, which is that with initrd, there should be almost
> no reason to compile a custo
"Derrick (Thrawn01)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the devices running embedded Initiate a communication with the Linux
> server. Our Daemon on the Linux box responds with
>
> a single packet containing the Transaction information. directly after that
> packet the Linux box sends a packet contain
Yes, this would be the wrong list.
I suppose you need to research the following:
0) Your email refers to a client server system, and mentions embedded dos,
a linux server, and a linux client. So a client/server architecture has
two parts, and your system has three parts, an embedded DOS thing,
(what does this have to do with Debian package development?)
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Derrick (Thrawn01) wrote:
> I'm not sure if this would be the correct List to post a question such was
> this. but.
>
> we use Linux as the server on a Embedded DOS client-server environment.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 08:39:33AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Mon 28 Aug 2000, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 02:52:01PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> > > The problem here, as I mentioned in an earlier reply before this got
> > > crossposted to l-k, is that "our" versio
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel-image with the same version
Date: 17 Aug 2000 13:50:13 -0500
> Atsuhito> Okay I will try later. BTW, /etc/kernel-img.conf might
> Atsuhito> be /etc/kernel-pkg.conf
>
> Umm, /etc/kernel-pkg.conf is wh
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel-image with the same version
Date: 17 Aug 2000 13:44:24 -0500
> To recap:
> a) potato install installed 2.2.17. You now want a new kernel
> b) You moved /lib/modules/2.2.17 to 2.2.17-old
> c) you installed y
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:44:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> To recap:
> a) potato install installed 2.2.17. You now want a new kernel
> b) You moved /lib/modules/2.2.17 to 2.2.17-old
> c) you installed your own version of 2.2.17
> d) You now have one /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.17, an
>>"Atsuhito" == Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Atsuhito> From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Atsuhito> Subject: Re: kernel-image with the same version
Atsuhito> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:54:29 -0400
>> Edit /etc/kernel-img.conf and add
Hi,
To recap:
a) potato install installed 2.2.17. You now want a new kernel
b) You moved /lib/modules/2.2.17 to 2.2.17-old
c) you installed your own version of 2.2.17
d) You now have one /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.17, and both /vmlinuz and
/vmlinuz.old link to it.
There is o real w
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel-image with the same version
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:54:29 -0400
> Edit /etc/kernel-img.conf and add this line:
>
> reverse_symlink := yes
Okay I will try later. BTW, /etc/kernel-img.conf might
be /etc/kernel-pkg.conf
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel-image with the same version
Date: 16 Aug 2000 00:31:48 -0500
> Atsuhito> I installed recently potato from scratch. Rescue disk installed
> Atsuhito> kernel 2.2.17 and I rebuild kernel-image with kerne-source 2.2.
Hi,
>>"Atsuhito" == Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Atsuhito> I installed recently potato from scratch. Rescue disk installed
Atsuhito> kernel 2.2.17 and I rebuild kernel-image with kerne-source 2.2.17
Atsuhito> so the version of kernel was same for both.
Umm. This should
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:43:14AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I installed recently potato from scratch. Rescue disk installed
> kernel 2.2.17 and I rebuild kernel-image with kerne-source 2.2.17
> so the version of kernel was same for both.
>
> When I installed kernel-image-2.2.1
> "JR" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JR> On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 09:47:41PM +1100, Mikolaj J. Habryn
JR> wrote:
>> If you haven't sent from a root account there is a chance that
>> our list server has inserted a line like "Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> which c
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 09:47:41PM +1100, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:
> root isn't even mentioned in the headers.
This is the only occurrence:
> > Received: from mussel.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.95.13.18])
> Why is this feature even in place?
Isn't it obvious? :)
> You should not
ion-Warning: mussel.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au: dichro set sender to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Mikolaj J. Habryn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: DI Peter Burgstaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
> Subject: R
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I've finally gotten around to making a simple skeleton for packaging
> kernel modules. When I have some more free time I'll expand it a bit
> and write some documentation to go with it. Oh, and I might test it
> since it's currently completely untested :).
>
> Anyway, for
>
> I can very well understand them. First of all some Linux distributors have
> been creative in the past and have moved rc[0-6].d/ and init.d/ to
> interesting places like /sbin/ or /etc/rc.d/, probably just to be
> ``different'' from a real System V. Just one of the small but annoying
> diffe
> > I'm looking for information on how to setup for kernel debugging.
> > Any help?
>
> $ cd /usr/src/linux/scripts
> $ g++ -o ksymoops ksymoops.cc -I/usr/include/g++
> $ cp ksymoops /usr/local/bin
>
> Then, when you get an oops, you can:
>
> 1. Save the oops (get it from /var/log/syslog) to ~
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for information on how to setup for kernel debugging.
> Any help?
$ cd /usr/src/linux/scripts
$ g++ -o ksymoops ksymoops.cc -I/usr/include/g++
$ cp ksymoops /usr/local/bin
Then, when you get an oops, you can:
1. Save the oops (get it from /
I haven't tested it, but it really looks like Gordon Chaffee's
patches are included.
homey 4 > rgrep -i -r 'fat32' .
./fs/fat/cache.c: fat_bits == 16 ? EOF_FAT16 :
EOF_FAT3
2);
./fs/fat/inode.c: int fat32;
./fs/fat/in
"Bob" == Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> conclude that it probably is there (maybe in a different form
Bob> than the patches).
Bob> As usual, the documentation lags the code, of course.
The documentation is off on Alan Cox's site -- it seems you have to
activate NLS support and UTF8
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I downloaded the sources for the 2.0.34 kernel and did a quick look through
> the files. The fat-32 patches do not seem to be in here. If 2.0.34 is to
> be released as a debian package, then I hope all of the patches that are in
> the 2.0.33 package
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 07:42:27AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I downloaded the sources for the 2.0.34 kernel and did a quick look through
> the files. The fat-32 patches do not seem to be in here. If 2.0.34 is to
> be released as a debian package, then I hope all of the patches that are in
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Precisely, in bo the boot-floppies had to disable pcmcia because it was
> broken. I guess you never had to install using a pcmcia network card.
> If we make changes to the kernels, let's make sure there is no broken
> dependent package.
I don't
Raul Miller wrote:
> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try
> > to explain something like "Oh yeah, the new kernel is there, but you
> > can't use it yet since ..." where ... stems from the person's need for
> > some dependant packag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> How is this different from bo, where we also had three kernel versions
> available and only had pcmcia modules for the first two?
No difference. And no improvement. :)
-Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try
> to explain something like "Oh yeah, the new kernel is there, but you
> can't use it yet since ..." where ... stems from the person's need for
> some dependant package. Example: say he needs pcmc
Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> kernel v2.0.34 has appeared at the usual FTP sites. (Sure you knew that,
> didn't you?). Is it too late in the "frozen" stage to include it in hamm?
IMHO it should be packaged ASAP; propably released into unstable. It
will be tested by many people. De
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I don't agree that we have to delay the release of hamm to have 2.0.34
> as a hamm package.
I do :)
Speaking purely as a user, I think the job should be done right.
Speaking as a debian advocate, it would be highly embarrassing to try to
explain something like "Oh y
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A month or two? Isn't the development kernel supposed to be released as
> "stable" by then?
Oh no, I don't think so. Kernel development seems to be caotic at this
time. Maintainers of different parts of the kernels are complaining
loudly because Linus h
Hi,
> There is apparently an updated driver on whatever the AIC7XXX driver's home
> site is. Maybe that should be included as a local patch for our source---at
> least up to this point, Alan Cox has been making it sound like 2.0.35 is a
> month or two away, at least.
A month or two? Isn't the
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 06:18:19PM -0400, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Yes, AIC7XXX is a problem with 2.0.34. This probably means that 2.0.35
> > will be
> > forthcoming.
> I've had no problems whatsoever with my AIC7880 onboard UW SCSI
> controller. It handles my SCSI-3 hard drive, SCSI-2 CD-ROM
Hi,
> Yes, AIC7XXX is a problem with 2.0.34. This probably means that 2.0.35 will
> be
> forthcoming.
I've had no problems whatsoever with my AIC7880 onboard UW SCSI
controller. It handles my SCSI-3 hard drive, SCSI-2 CD-ROM Drive and my
SCSI-1 DAT/DDS-2 tape drive just fine. Nevertheless,
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Jesse Goldman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks to me like kernel 2.0.34 is more than just a bugfix release. The
> aic7xxx/pci driver changed *completely* with the result that my adaptec
> 2940AU no longer seems to work. I'd agree with the suggestion that 2.0.33
> be kept around a bit lo
How about ship Hamm with 2.0.33 as setup but include what's necessary for
2.0.34 the way Bo has 2.0.29 but includes the stuff for 2.0.30
--
http://benham.net/index.html
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++> P+++$ L++> E?
Hi,
Looks to me like kernel 2.0.34 is more than just a bugfix release. The
aic7xxx/pci driver changed *completely* with the result that my adaptec
2940AU no longer seems to work. I'd agree with the suggestion that 2.0.33
be kept around a bit longer.
J. Goldman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's be clear about what this means. We need to compile the kernel
> and all packages that depend on it, pcmcia-modules, boot-floppies,
> etc. (We could, I guess live with the boot-floppies being 2.0.33 but
> given that there is a mismatch betwe
Martin Mitchell wrote:
> I second this, 2.0.34 has undergone much testing in prereleases and is a
> further refinement of the stable branch of the kernel tree.
Let's be clear about what this means. We need to compile the kernel and all
packages that depend on it, pcmcia-modules, boot-floppies, etc.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to recommend that linux 2.0.34 be made available as a
> part of hamm. This is because 2.0.34 is a bugfix-only upgrade to
> 2.0.33.
>
> However, I don't think we have enough experience with 2.0.34 to
> eliminate 2.0.33 from the distribution.
On Thu, Jun 04, 1998 at 10:18:32AM +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> kernel v2.0.34 has appeared at the usual FTP sites. (Sure you knew that,
> didn't you?). Is it too late in the "frozen" stage to include it in hamm?
It fixes a lot of problems and it had been given a hard testing time
on linux-kerne
On Thu, May 07, 1998 at 08:10:16AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has this been fixed for hamm? ( Or have I missed something here?)
I use the kernel-package .deb to make custom kernels. It is available
for bo and hamm. It makes a .deb that you can install with dpkg -i.
I quot.
"This package
On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 12:56:49PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > A question which comes to my curious mind... is there a way a program
> > running as root can ask the kernel things like "do you support modules and
> > module versioning?" or is the above script which hung my machine without
>
301 - 400 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
