Moin Goswin!
Goswin von Brederlow schrieb am Mittwoch, den 02. Juni 2004:
> > I like to build dependency helper packages that ease
> > cross-kernel-version updates. To build these for kernel module .debs,
> > I need to learn how the binary kernel module package is named. For
> > most packages, thi
First time I see this wiki page. Comments:
> new naming scheme getting rid of "image" as part or package names (only
> for Provides: - compatibility issues), instead, distinguishing between
> linux and hurd. First idea:
>
> linux-kernel-source-KVERS
>
>
> linux-kernel-KVERS-ARCH(-SUBVERS) (
We've been flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing a lot of design items here,
but we should try to get up a list of items for to be done for sarge.
First priority for all sarge work should be to keep the maintaince
overhead for the security team down. That means in particular trying
to keep as few as po
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:52:15AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > * architecture support patches hard to apply unless the main
> > > kernel-source
> > >package is "pristine"
> >
> > as mentioned a few times architecture packages should be part of the
> > main kernel-source to avoid a big m
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:14:58PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > linux-kernel-KVERS-ARCH(-SUBVERS) (plus extras, see below)
>
> remov the -kernel, linux is the kernel, and upstream tarballs are
> linux-$version, too.
>
> remove the -arch, it'll be .$arch.deb anyway, rather add a -flavour.
* dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040602 17:55]:
> From my conversations with Joey, the problem with today's scheme is that they
> can't
> just patch one source tree & do rebuilds, since everyone is on different
> kernel revisions
> and some (ia64 in woody, for example), don't even use a kernel
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> To do all this work nicely we should get a repo on alioth ASAP,
> especially to allow the arch maintainers to work on the main
> kernel-source too for better cooperation.
The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for l
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 04:41:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> So when was the last s390-specific exploit you heard of? Or any
> architecture-specific exploit?
Hmm, the ptrace exploit was only applicable on archs which uses one
large memory space for user/kernelspace.
Bastian
--
Spock: T
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:45:27PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 04:41:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > So when was the last s390-specific exploit you heard of? Or any
> > architecture-specific exploit?
>
> Hmm, the ptrace exploit was only applicable on archs which
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:42:39PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > To do all this work nicely we should get a repo on alioth ASAP,
> > especially to allow the arch maintainers to work on the main
> > kernel-source too for better c
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
> directory.
If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
Hmm, I should try to automerge kernel sources with svk.
Bastian
--
The heart is not a logica
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
> > directory.
>
> If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
Umm, no. Patches shou
Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
2.6 kernels?
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
> to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
> 2.6 kernels?
s390 works rock stable with 2.6.5 and ibm patches. 2.6.6 seems to
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:21:42PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
> > to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
> > 2.6 kerne
> The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
> repositories.
It is for arch.debian.org.
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
> to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
> 2.6 kernels?
Mips/mipsel needs some toolchain fixes for 64bit kernels, and the
only working subarchitecture with 32bit ke
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I don't think we should check the kernel tree into it. Just the debian/
> > > directory.
> >
> > If we want to handle patches, we
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:25:17PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > If we want to handle patches, we need to that.
> >
> > Umm, no. Patches should be stored as individual patches in the debian/
> > dir the get applied before building.
>
> Even for non-feature-patches which aren't harmful for ot
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently I can only see powerpc and some older ia64 patches in addition
> to the basic kernel source, are there any other architectures working on
> 2.6 kernels?
I can not say I am working on it, I haven't got it working on i386
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:32:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Is there debian packaging I missed somewhere?
Not in the archive.
Bastian
--
Well, Jim, I'm not much of an actor either.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:33:53PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > The alioth repository host is currently not suitable for large
^
> > repositories.
>
> It is for arch.debian.org.
arch is not suitable for large repositories either.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We've been flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing a lot of design items here,
> but we should try to get up a list of items for to be done for sarge.
>
> First priority for all sarge work should be to keep the maintaince
> overhead for
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[snip]
> The idea is have to have a debian/patches/ dir that contains all
> patches, similar to how many of the lots of little patches systems
> work these days (CDBS? or the .dpatch stuff in the glibc packaging),
> and the .diff.gz doesn't touch anything outside debian/.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:46:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have been tracking the -benh tree for the powerpc 2.4 kernels, since
> most people used that anyway. Benh has not updated this tree since
> february though, and i don't forsee him working on this in the next two
> month or so, so ther
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:20:43PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > The idea is have to have a debian/patches/ dir that contains all
> > patches, similar to how many of the lots of little patches systems
> > work these days (CDBS? or the .dpatch stuff in the glibc packaging),
> > and the .diff.gz do
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:40:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:46:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I have been tracking the -benh tree for the powerpc 2.4 kernels, since
> > most people used that anyway. Benh has not updated this tree since
> > february though, an
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I'll merge it forward for you this wekk. I'll also talk to benh whether I
> > can check it into his BK repo.
>
> Ok, fine with me, altough i still think that 2.6 makes more sense for
> powerpc in the long run.
I completely agree.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:06:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I'll merge it forward for you this wekk. I'll also talk to benh whether I
> > > can check it into his BK repo.
> >
> > Ok, fine with me, altough i still think th
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
> and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
> gain by going to 2.4.26, apart from uniformity over all arches.
I don't have the time rig
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
> > and backported from later kernels, so i don't really see what we would
> > gain by going t
I apologize for the delay in posting something on this topic. When Herbert
announced that he was resigning, I talked to him privately to discuss how
we can move to a kernel team and which people to involve. I then invited
some (upstream) kernel people who use and are interested in Debian to get
i
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:52:17PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Known security problems ? All known problems of 2.4.25 have been fixed
> > > and backported
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 04:41:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:52:15AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > I believe its a greater maintenance mess to attempt to keep them united.
> > I can be more confident that upstream's ia64 arch patch will apply
> > reasonably
> >
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:20:43PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [snip]
> > The idea is have to have a debian/patches/ dir that contains all
> > patches, similar to how many of the lots of little patches systems
> > work these days (CDBS? or the .dpatch stuff in the glibc
35 matches
Mail list logo
