On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 06:25:44PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 11:34 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Please use the advertised e-mail addresses for maintainers.
> Expand, please? I took your address from the commit that Robert pointed
> out.
You're better off with MAINTAINE
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:30:26PM +0200, Sergheu Mihai wrote:
> Running actually the version 3.10, which according to the above sources fixes
> the regression, I still have the bug.
Hi Sergheu,
There's further fixes going in to 3.11, and the upstream testing
on a Scarlett 2i4 is in Ubuntu bug:
h
Googling for hp dc5800 boot problems suggested adding "pci=nommconf" to
the kernel command line. This cures the problem.
Other reports discussing this problem are at least three years old.
Does its reappearance indicate a regression in kernel 3.10?
Matthew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ke
bject_r:udev_tbl_t:s0 tclass=file
[ 620.274957] type=1400 audit(1376917176.864:314): avc: denied { getattr }
for pid=4582 comm="pool" path="/run/udev/data/b8:0" dev="tmpfs" ino=6358
scontext=system_u:system_r:system_dbusd_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
tcontext=system_u
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 03:55:14PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>Hi,
>
>we should start thinking about dates for the 7.2 and 6.0.8 point
>releases. Which week-ends in the coming months would work for
>ftpmaster, press and cd? (We'd need one date for stable and another
>later for oldstable.)
>
>An
Hi,
we should start thinking about dates for the 7.2 and 6.0.8 point
releases. Which week-ends in the coming months would work for
ftpmaster, press and cd? (We'd need one date for stable and another
later for oldstable.)
Anything particular that needs to happen on either the kernel or d-i
side?
reassign 647007 src:linux
thanks
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:54:48PM +0200, Thomas Bétrancourt wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.32-38
> Severity: critical
> File: /lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/kernel/drivers/net/e1000e/e1000e.ko
> Justification: causes serious data loss
>
> Since upgrade t
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 647007 src:linux
Bug #647007 [linux-2.6]
/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-amd64/kernel/drivers/net/e1000e/e1000e.ko: e1000e driver
not working: packet loss >80%
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-2.6' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as found in v
Your message dated Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:08:35 +0200
with message-id <20130819160835.ge13...@inutil.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#655242: ext4: Warning at ext4 inode.c:885
has caused the Debian Bug report #655242,
regarding ext4: Warning at ext4 inode.c:885
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:08:30 +0200
with message-id <20130819160830.gd13...@inutil.org>
and subject line Re: LVM segfaults on 3.3-rc6
has caused the Debian Bug report #664859,
regarding linux-image-3.3.0-rc6-amd64: LVM segfaults on 3.3 kernel
to be marked as done.
This means that yo
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 714521 gcc
Bug #714521 [base] base: (GCC|G++|something else in the toolchain) produces
segfaulting code
Bug reassigned from package 'base' to 'gcc'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #714521 to the same values
previously s
Package: src:linux
Version: 3.2.46-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
On a Lenovo Ideapad z585, using HDMI output, having already had to blacklist
snf-hda-codec-hdmi to avoid oopses on boot (probably a different issue, will
file separately), when starting plasma-desktop for the first time on a
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 14:26 -0700, Christian Kujau wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 at 15:48, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>> This patch replaces the one I posted yesterday. I like this better since
>>> it doesn't require fixing existing on-disk cookies or skippin
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 11:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 06:25:44PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 11:34 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Please use the advertised e-mail addresses for maintainers.
>
> > Expand, please? I took your address from the co
Package: linux-image-686-pae
Version: 3.10+51
Severity: wishlist
Shouldn't some warning be given upon attempting to install on machines
where /proc/cpuinfo lacks pae?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@
The Description says:
This kernel requires PAE (Physical Address Extension).
Thus wouldn't installing it and removing other kernels make the system
unbootable or lead to data loss?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:39:40AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 11:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Could you be more specific as to what you believe the problem that
> > exists is? You mentioned that the kernel would be tainted but that
> > doesn't seem like a not working t
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 07:42:38AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Shouldn't some warning be given upon attempting to install on machines
> where /proc/cpuinfo lacks pae?
Why? There is no check if this is actually a machine capable of running
a kernel with 686-style opcodes.
Also the cpuid en
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 07:53:06AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Thus wouldn't installing it and removing other kernels make the system
> unbootable or lead to data loss?
No. First: no kernel is removed automatically. Second: The data loss
definition only applies to automatic stuff, not to s
19 matches
Mail list logo
