On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 07:37:27PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 12:28:59PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:08:45PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think you're mistaken. The known bug in the DV scsi core was fixed
9 weeks ago (according to
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:40:47PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
James took a look at my test box, and has submitted[1] a fix upstream.
So, this means we no longer need drivers-scsi-sym53c8xx_revert.dpatch.
I know that the proper way to update a patch in kernel-source is to add
another patch -
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 07:25:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:40:47PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
James took a look at my test box, and has submitted[1] a fix upstream
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:12:20AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
The only ones that aren't already upstream, afaict, are:
sym53c8xx_revert.patch - The new domain validation stuff mysteriously
breaks
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:12:20AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
The only ones that aren't already upstream, afaict, are:
sym53c8xx_revert.patch - The new domain validation stuff mysteriously
breaks
http://www.osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/ probably will be some
results there during the day, tho it failed the tests.
Thomas
_
MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien
mellom deg og dine
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:53:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
mailine kernels build out of the box. The additional early printk
support in the ia64 patch has been replaced with something better in
mainline, leaving only a completly unrelated and unexplainable usb
change in david's patch
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:51:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:57:40AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
At some point in the past, I wrote:
The 2.6.8 release has been almost exclusively focused on stabilization
business.
Regards, Jens.
After chatting w/ some of the -boot people on IRC, I'm unconvinced that 2
weeks is enough time. We're talking about 4 and a half weeks total before
the packages enter testing, and that's assuming
a) 2.6.8 release happens within a week
b) it takes 2 weeks
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:09:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
After chatting w/ some of the -boot people on IRC, I'm unconvinced that 2
weeks is enough time. We're talking about 4 and a half weeks total before
the packages enter testing, and that's assuming
a) 2.6.8 release happens within
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Planning to violate the release schedule is not encouraged.
No, but let's be realist. The woody release schedule was also announced in a
hurry (of the no info for month, and then we freeze tomorrow), and then we
waited almost three
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Planning to violate the release schedule is not encouraged.
No, but let's be realist. The woody release schedule was also announced in a
hurry (of the no info for
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:28:55AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:20:09PM +, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Here goes the forth 2.4.27 release candidate.
It includes a dozen of USB fixes, JFS update, IA64 fixes,
networking update, amongst others.
2.4.27 final
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:28:55AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I hope very soon; I have OOM killer fixes (purely functional issues,
i.e. refcounting mm's) waiting for 2.4.28-pre1.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
anything more precise than soon ? We need
What is discussed here, should not this apply to kernel 2.4.27 wich is soon
out the door as well, also has had a looong test run, yes know it`s summer,
but 2.6 and 2.4- what`s comming seems like better than 2.4.26 and 2.6.7, and
yes one can always go on and say the next will be better d`oh, but
What is discussed here, should not this apply to kernel 2.4.27 wich is soon
out the door as well, also has had a looong test run, yes know it`s summer,
but 2.6 and 2.4- what`s comming seems like better than 2.4.26 and 2.6.7, and
yes one can always go on and say the next will be better d`oh, but
At some point in the past, I wrote:
The 2.6.8 release has been almost exclusively focused on stabilization.
I highly recommend adopting as much of 2.6.8 as possible if not the
whole delta between 2.6.7 and 2.6.8. If not incrementing the version
number after freeze is the primary constraint
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:57:40AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
At some point in the past, I wrote:
The 2.6.8 release has been almost exclusively focused on stabilization.
I highly recommend adopting as much of 2.6.8 as possible if not the
whole delta between 2.6.7 and 2.6.8
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 09:28:46PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
Note that one thing I'm concerned about (and probably should've mentioned
in my original post) is ia64 and alpha; getting 2.6.8 into sarge will be
tight. Assume that i386 and powerpc will be thrown in w/ kernel-source,
as those
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:45:57 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
Aren't experimental and unstable in different override files?
Quoting AJ:
For people uploading to experimental, you should be aware of the
following:
* experimental uses the same overrides as unstable. Packages
20 matches
Mail list logo
