On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:26:57 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a bug
>>> report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on th
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:26:57PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
> >> bug repor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
>> bug report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on this issue?
>
> ...
>
>>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
> bug report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on this issue?
...
> Again, what is broken about EXTRAVERSION? Which bug reports
> are we talk
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:48:22 +0100, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> And Bastian is decidetly anti make-kpkg and wants to remove all
>> make-kpkg use from linux-2.6 as stated several times now. You can
>> see begini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I believe that maintaining yaird separately from debian-kernel helps
>> avoid interest conflicts.
>
> Well, this is where you are wrong, there is no conclict of
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, jonas, i notice also :
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403203
>
> Yes. I was slightly baffled about that bugreport fork,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, jonas, i notice also :
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403203
Yes. I was slightly baffled about that bugreport fork, and is still
wondering what to do about it: To me is seems like a report against the
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And Bastian is decidetly anti make-kpkg and wants to remove all
> make-kpkg use from linux-2.6 as stated several times now. You can see
> beginings of that in the xen kernels.
That happens if the same problems happens over and
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:47:56AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Well, the real problem is that Manoj could be part of the kernel team,
> > > and to
> > > a point even is, since he
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, the real problem is that Manoj could be part of the kernel team, and
> > to
> > a point even is, since he has svn access to the repo.
> >
> > But there is a problem, in that Ma
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >From personal experience I must say that bugs reported against
>> kernel-package get manojs attention fast and get fixed fast.
>>
>> Bugs against the linux-2.6 source get ignored or
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:30:28AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:50:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> >> Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
> >> kernel, and the official kernel is only an afte
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:50:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
>> kernel, and the official kernel is only an after thought
This is a egregious mischaracterization of my stance.
> In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
> kernel, and the official kernel is only an after thought
In my understanding kernel-package is intended as a _generic_ tool for
Debian-packaging a Linux kernel, o
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >From personal experience I must say that bugs reported against
> kernel-package get manojs attention fast and get fixed fast.
>
> Bugs against the linux-2.6 source get ignored or you get comments like
> "breaks cross building
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:43:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I'm not longer interrested in communicating errors in software,
>> > which is not able to catch errors but
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:41:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > yes i want to add 2.6.18.5 to linux-2.6 sid,
> > not sure if it breaks abi through..
> Sounds to me like something to look into *after* 2.6.18 has had a chance to
> reach testing?
You have to force them than.
Bastian
--
Killing
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 03:41:24PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > We need another upload
Teodor-Adrian MICU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is a good ideea to adopt 2.6.19 for etch if its possible.
Please don't unless we can't avoid it. Each time we bring in a new
kernel, those of us who maintain external kernel modules have to do a
bunch of work to catch up with all the AP
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:43:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should
> >> ignore,
>
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should
>> ignore,
>> but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing
>> today ?
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:36:30AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should ignore,
> > but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
> > What a
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
> > > > the following issue
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
> > > the following issues:
> > Ok, do we have a plan for this ?
> Not yet.
Can we upload that
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Frankly, 2.6.16 was a total cock-up. Aside from all the extra work it made
> for the release team, I even found patches I had to reapply for alpha
> because they were dropped on the floor when 2.6.16 was merged to trunk. I
> am very much opposed to h
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:41:08AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The -k7 issue, i don't know, can it be a flavour that was dropped or
> > something ?
>
> linux-latest-2.6 is not a candidate because not yet uploaded on sparc.
> That
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
> > the following issues:
> Ok, do we have a plan for this ?
Not yet.
> > I'm not longer interrested in communicating errors in software, which is
> > not able
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The -k7 issue, i don't know, can it be a flavour that was dropped or
> something ?
linux-latest-2.6 is not a candidate because not yet uploaded on sparc.
That's the easy part; linux-modules-extra-2.6 is the harder part, currently
fail
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:36:30AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should ignore,
> > but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
> > What a
I think it is a good ideea to adopt 2.6.19 for etch if its possible. I
looked over the changelogs in 2.6.18 and there is one issue that
concerns me:
commit a4fce7747b167aa5e9aa43c4f816744d8a97e021
Author: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed Oct 11 01:53:26 2006 -0700
NETFILTER: NA
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should ignore,
> but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
> What about the remaining (or new) RC bugs ? Some of them being open
> aga
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061201 20:30]:
> > - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should ignore,
> > but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
> > What about the re
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061201 20:30]:
> - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should ignore,
> but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
> What about the remaining (or new) RC bugs ? Some of them being open
> against 2.6.17
Hi fellow all debian-kernel team members and others,
The 2.6.19 kernel was released on november 29, and this seems to be the first
kernel since 2.6.14, which we are not supporting quickly, or don't have any
coherent plan to do so in the near future. This makes sense because the 2.6.18
is the plane
35 matches
Mail list logo
