On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:09:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
At least for fai, they would need to rebuild anyway, because we are going with
2.6.8. but this is nothing a rebuild cannot fix.
I'm sure that's true for all of them; its just a matter of being able
to tell the maintainer what to
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
ARM's 2.4.26 kernel in the archive apparently doesn't work while
2.4.27 in NEW has been tested to work.
Another argument for 2.4.27 is that some arches have kernels that can
be taken as it for sarge (e.g. mips, arm); on the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:08AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Another argument for 2.4.26 is that going to a releaseable 2.4.26 image
is just a rebuild of the existing 2.4.26 package, while some archs with 2.4.26
images don't already have 2.4.27 packages (m68, arm, sparc)[1]. Going with
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:08AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Other things that would be useful to know:
- d-i status - what kernel is being used in d-i svn? what kernel is in
the current rc?
(Hard to determine)
You could use the build-deps of linux-kernel-di-* (e.g.,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:08AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
ARM's 2.4.26 kernel in the archive apparently doesn't work while
2.4.27 in NEW has been tested to work.
Another argument for 2.4.27 is that some arches have
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:08AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Another argument for 2.4.26 is that going to a releaseable 2.4.26 image
is just a rebuild of the existing 2.4.26 package, while some archs with
2.4.26
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:52:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There will be a new d-i release before long anyway, which is also why we need
to take this decision, and make both debian-release and debian-boot
participate in it.
This argument goes away once 2.4.27 kernels are made available on
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
m68k here. There are 2.4.27 images available, they are just not yet in
sarge. We need at least 2.4.26-3 for atari in sarge, which still needs 3
days it seems. The 2.4.27 images need 6 days. Yes, I could have uploaded
them
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:53:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it was the WE, alioth was done, and not many participated in the early
thread. tbm has pointed problem with some arches on 2.4.26 which are solved
with 2.4.27 though, so ...
Nobody seems to be arguing against 2.4.27 (well,
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:43:22PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:48:32PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
We need to come to an agreement about which kernel-source we will ship
for sarge. According to http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianKernel,
everyone w/ 2.4.26 has
ARM's 2.4.26 kernel in the archive apparently doesn't work while
2.4.27 in NEW has been tested to work.
Another argument for 2.4.27 is that some arches have kernels that can
be taken as it for sarge (e.g. mips, arm); on the other hand, if we go
with 2.4.26, we'd have to update all of them again
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:43:22PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:48:32PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
We need to come to an agreement about which kernel-source we will ship
for sarge. According to http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianKernel,
everyone w/ 2.4.26 has
12 matches
Mail list logo
