On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:48:44PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just needed to download grml to install my new box, which is based on
> the VT8251 chipset. Please include the driver in the d-i kernel for
> etch, thanks.
>
> Marc, this is my PERSONAL needy self, not the relea
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:14:20PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:42:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Can we set the compiler for hppa to 4.1?
> Yes, I've been using it to build non-debian kernels for a while.
Okay, done.
> (PS: I'd like to set up a kernel buildd for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Will anyone object if I lower the count of old-style ptys to 16? Or
>should we finaly disable it completely?
Just kill them.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-原始邮件-发件人:"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>发送时间:2006-09-24 17:52:17收件人:debian-kernel@lists.debian.org抄送:(无)主题:Re: config change: old ptys[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Will anyone object if I lower the count of old-style ptys to 16? Or
>should we finaly disable it completely?
Hello Maximilian
Thanks for your answer
> you should start by posting the error messages and an
> vmstat 1 run when that happens.
VMstat shows the following:
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system--
cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Saturday, 30th September 16:00 UTC
>
>
> Topic:
>
> 1. Find a common platform for all kernel-team members concerning
>firmware blobs.
>
>
> Is the scheduled time OK for everyone?
> Does anyone have additional topics to discuss?
2. Backporti
Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
> upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
> them the first time in 2004.
My apologies for blowing up, although it looks like my flaming message died
in transit.
Anyway, it
Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose an IRC meeting for all kernel team members, to
> discuss where we stand and what we want to do in the future, concerning
> kernel firmwares.
Or, you could get the damn tg3 patches into Debian's kernel already. It
would prove that you
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> If the firmware-loading tg3 driver is present in the next kernel package
> version, I will believe that the kernel team is acting in good faith to try
> to satisfy the Social Contract.
According to the kernel-team patch po
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:42:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (It's an egregious case, because the vast majority of tg3 users don't need
> firmware at all. Including the firmware in main in order to support
> network installs by the tiny number of users who do need it -- I have hear
(new) linux-headers-2.6.18-1-all-amd64_2.6.18-1_amd64.deb optional devel
All header files for Linux 2.6.18
This package depends against all architecture-specific kernel header files
for Linux kernel version 2.6.18, generally used for building out-of-tree
kernel modules.
(new) linux-headers-2.6.1
linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.diff.gz
linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.dsc
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.dsc
linux-2.6_2.6.18.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18.orig.tar.gz
(new) linux-doc-2.6.18_2.6.18-1_all.deb optional doc
Linux k
Steve Langasek wrote:
> If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
> belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
> to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
> means to remove this particular subset of non-free f
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:48:44PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> I just needed to download grml to install my new box, which is based on
>> the VT8251 chipset. Please include the driver in the d-i kernel for
>> etch, thanks.
> lspci output?
Package: linux-image-2.6-amd64
Version: 2.6.17+2
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
(someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
>> > > Re-adding them at this stage
>> > > 1) is against the current social contract
>>
>> > Yes, but then so
And thanks for the last release name!
Many hugs,
Enrico
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: linux-image-2.6.17-2-k7
Version: 2.6.17-9
Followup-For: Bug #386985
I have to amend my previous report: disabling ACPI in BIOS does actually work,
and the kernel can be booted. The noacpi kernel command
line option does nothing, as far as I can tell. I have no idea why this didn't
work
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 05:24:22PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Linux 2.6.18 has been released, and it looks like we can do a first
> > upload today.
>
> Is there an .orig.tar.gz already?
>
> Norbert
yes,
since day 0
-> http://kernel-archive.
Accepted:
linux-headers-2.6.18-1-all-amd64_2.6.18-1_amd64.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-all-amd64_2.6.18-1_amd64.deb
linux-headers-2.6.18-1-all_2.6.18-1_amd64.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6.18-1-all_2.6.18-1_amd64.deb
linux-headers-2.6.18-1-amd64_2.6.18-1_
Accepted:
linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.diff.gz
linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.dsc
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18-1.dsc
linux-2.6_2.6.18.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.18.orig.tar.gz
linux-doc-2.6.18_2.6.18-1_all.deb
to pool/main/
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:55 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#375035: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#364637: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:55 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#375035: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:49 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#366620: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:55 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#375194: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:55 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#387178: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#359025: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:49 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#366620: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:04:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#364637: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
(new) linux-headers-2.6.18-1-486_2.6.18-1_i386.deb optional devel
Header files for Linux 2.6.18 on x86
This package provides the architecture-specific kernel header files for
Linux kernel 2.6.18 on x86 and compatible machines, generally used for
building out-of-tree kernel modules. These files
* Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-23 17:24]:
> * Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Linux 2.6.18 has been released, and it looks like we can do a first
> > upload today.
> Is there an .orig.tar.gz already?
Yes, check out
http://kernel-archive.buildserver.net/debian-kernel/pool/main/l/li
Let's add XFS team in CC.
On 2006-09-24, Dan Ohnesorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6-amd64
> Version: 2.6.17+2
> Severity: critical
> Justification: breaks the whole system
More details, please.
What happend before this boot?
Why ext3 is recovering?
> raid1: raid set md
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:08:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Today I sent an email asking upstream to remove dgrs based on its
> uselessness; we'll see what happens.
Thanks. We should consider removing it, too then.
Best regards
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Descript
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:08:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> (someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
> >> > > Re-adding them at this
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 12:39:38PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
> > belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
> > to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> At a minumum, the patch for tg3 exists and is fully
> functional: check with [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the version against the
> up-to-date kernel, and the corresponding loadable firmware files. It works
Comments from other had ma
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:42:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Frederik Schueler wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to propose an IRC meeting for all kernel team members, to
> > discuss where we stand and what we want to do in the future, concerning
> > kernel firmwares.
>
> Or, you c
Dne Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 09:23:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych napsal:
> Let's add XFS team in CC.
There isn't
> On 2006-09-24, Dan Ohnesorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Package: linux-image-2.6-amd64
> > Version: 2.6.17+2
> > Severity: critical
> > Justification: breaks the whole system
>
> More det
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 389232 linux-2.6
Bug#389232: linux-image-2.6-amd64: mounting xfs filesystem causes kernel oops
Bug reassigned from package `linux-image-2.6-amd64' to `linux-2.6'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
D
reassign 389232 linux-2.6
thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:19:07PM +0200, Dan Ohnesorg wrote:
> Dne Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 09:23:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych napsal:
>
> > Let's add XFS team in CC.
>
> There isn't
Yes, my MUA...
>
> > On 2006-09-24, Dan Ohnesorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Package: linux-image-2.6-amd64
> > >
mkvmlinuz_24_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
mkvmlinuz_24.dsc
mkvmlinuz_24.tar.gz
mkvmlinuz_24_powerpc.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Your message dated Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:27:19 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#389232: linux-image-2.6-amd64: mounting xfs filesystem
causes kernel oops
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
> > The problem was solved by using my own kernel, 2.6.18.
>
> Well, that means you've cathed this (git commit):
> b2ea401bac39e75ebb64038609ed22efbc799905
>
>
> Maybe it's worth to ask to be in next 2.6.17-stable ?
Yes, it will make sense to me. Problem is, that I cannot make any test,
becouse
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
> > belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
> > to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
> > means to remove
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: normal
The LSM for BSD secure levels is broken by design and unmaintained.
(CVE-2005-4351 and CVE-2005-4252). It's scheduled for removal
upstream (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/2/180), but hasn't been dropped
yet in 2.6.18.
While it's not enabled in the binary builds, i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # the following bugs are closed by packages in NEW
> #
> tags 274808 pending
Bug#274808: kernel-image-2.4.27-netwinder: Unresolved symbol (do_div64) in
smbfs module
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> tags 320930 pending
Bug#320930: ITP: ape
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.18-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of linux-2.6_2.6.18-1 on peri by sbuild/hppa 85
> Build started at 20060924-1209
[...]
> ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
> B
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package linux-2.6
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #388815
# * http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7189
# * remote status changed: (?) -> NEW
usertags
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 05:35:44PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > /build/buildd/linux-2.6-2.6.18/debian/build/build-hppa-none-parisc64/scripts/gcc-version.sh:
> > line 11: hppa64-linux-gcc-4.1: command not found
> > /build/buildd/linux-2.6-2.6.18/debian/build/build-hppa-none-parisc64/scripts/
Package: linux-image-2.6.16-2-k7
Version: 2.6.16-2-k7
However, this probably applies to all kernels, as it's the post-install
that seems problematic. It seems that redirecting
I just installed a few new drives, and decided to pull in a new kernel
to get md support (the old kernel
Followup-For: Bug #386497
Package: linux-image-2.6.17-2-686
*** Please type your report below this line ***
See also bugs 380188, 383264
I attempted to boot linux-image-2.6.17-2-686-bigmem and also had this
failure. This kernel was from backports.org, _but_ only these changes had
been made:
l
53 matches
Mail list logo
