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
well to
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 10:55]:
Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is a
trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't.
Therefore if the latter
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:22AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
What's the status with these bugs? There are 5 reported violations of the
DFSG, from 65 to 53 days old.
William, you're the current maintainer of the Debian packaged version of
Linux (well, technicaly not yet, but I'm told
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
the arch packages to the common package more easy, provided a modern
revision system is used, i
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it would just be a unified repository where all the kernels
packages would be held, and which would make migration of patches from
the arch packages to the
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, you can check in the compressed tarball, in order to be sure it
doesn't get lost or something. Less of a concern for kernel sources than
random assorted packages though.
OK..
detail. The common .config bit is of course also
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:19:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
detail. The common .config bit is of course also important! I'd love
to move the fragments infrastructure of the 2.6 kernel-patch-powerpc
to the generic
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:46:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Fine with me. So let's create an alitoh project for the kernel, and a
subversion repo. Anyone is already looking into this ?
Ok, Martin?
For 2.2/2.4 let's follow his suggestion to not do any major changes,
let's just try to move
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:25]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 10:55]:
Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
status. That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
maintaining these packages.
As a volunteer you can always take the decision of not acting.
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:55]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
status. That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
maintaining these packages.
However,
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:32:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, the release manager doesn't have the authority
to override the Social Contract (1.1) that was ratified by GR in April.
You might have missed GR 2004-003, and the discussions therein.
GR 2004-003
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 14:25]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:32:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
There
are proposals to override the SC for the release of sarge.
Please answer this: Since you agree with proposals for future versions of the
Social Contract and disagree
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:55]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
status. That is the reason why I did not act
* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 16:25]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:55]:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an
Package: initrd-tools
Version: 0.1.70
Severity: important
On powerpc/pegasos, when creating a initrd from the
kernel-image-2.6.6-powerpc kernel image, mkinitrd fails to make the
initrd load the via8cxxx module. The initrd is thus unable to mount the
filesystem, since there are no ide drivers,
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
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.
What do you name
18 matches
Mail list logo
