On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 00:39 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
tag 627837 patch
thanks
i've updated aufs in my own kernel tree, feel free to merge:
http://vcs.progress-linux.org/?p=packages/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;
h=26a2fd380e516f1df527c0357334eb5e10cdccb3
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net writes:
On 05/29/2011 10:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
The maintainers have already made that call, and I don't see a reason to
override their decision.
so no change after squeeze, the release team gives a shit about breaking
On 05/25/2011 12:54 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
i hereby request that:
* the release team overwrites the maintainers 'decision' to downgrade
#627837 from severity serious to important by marking #627837 RC
by restoring the severity to serious
* the release team makes sure that 2.6.39 does *not*
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 19:18:29 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 05/25/2011 12:54 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
i hereby request that:
* the release team overwrites the maintainers 'decision' to downgrade
#627837 from severity serious to important by marking #627837 RC
by restoring the
On 05/29/2011 08:18 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Then work with the kernel team to resolve this, and make sure what you
need is ready in the future when a new kernel is released, instead of
making others chase external patches for you.
it has always been ready, that's not the problem.
--
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 20:27:31 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 05/29/2011 08:18 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Then work with the kernel team to resolve this, and make sure what you
need is ready in the future when a new kernel is released, instead of
making others chase external patches for
On 05/29/2011 09:53 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Maybe it was ready in your mind, but it wasn't in debian-kernel svn or
mailing list (and as far as I can tell the kernel maintainers even
checked aufs git before the .39 upload, and didn't find any recent
changes there). So yeah, that's exactly
On 05/29/2011 10:04 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
no; aufs.git was up2date. in time. way before.
oh.. and before you ask.. 'way before' means 'at least 2011-04-18, but
possibly even earlier' (yes, that really is a month before .39 was
released).
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3,
severity 627837 serious
quit
Daniel Baumann wrote:
oh.. and before you ask.. 'way before' means 'at least 2011-04-18, but
possibly even earlier' (yes, that really is a month before .39 was
released).
I don't see the value of this discussion --- it's water under the
bridge, anyway.
I'm
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 15:28:18 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I'm setting the severity to serious, even though I am neither part of
the release team nor a maintainer for the package. Either should of
course feel free to set it back.
The maintainers have already made that call, and I don't
severity 627837 important
quit
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 15:28:18 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I'm setting the severity to serious, even though I am neither part of
the release team nor a maintainer for the package. Either should of
course feel free to set it back.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:16:40PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 05/29/2011 10:04 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 05/29/2011 09:53 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Maybe it was ready in your mind, but it wasn't in debian-kernel svn or
mailing list (and as far as I can tell the kernel maintainers
On 05/29/2011 10:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
The maintainers have already made that call, and I don't see a reason to
override their decision.
so no change after squeeze, the release team gives a shit about breaking
debian-live, sigh. but don't worry, from now on, i will not care anymore
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.netMay 29, 2011 5:18:27 PM
On 05/29/2011 10:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
The maintainers have already made that call, and I don't see a reason to
override their decision.
so no change after squeeze, the release team gives a shit about
On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 22:04 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 05/29/2011 09:53 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Maybe it was ready in your mind, but it wasn't in debian-kernel svn or
mailing list (and as far as I can tell the kernel maintainers even
checked aufs git before the .39 upload, and didn't
On 05/30/2011 04:16 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Is there a new canonical repository for aufs?
it always was http://git.c3sl.ufpr.br/pub/scm/aufs/aufs2-standalone.git,
like referenced from aufs.sf.net.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: serious
Hi,
in 2.6.39, apparently aufs was silently dropped, please re-enable.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:
tag 627837 patch
thanks
i've updated aufs in my own kernel tree, feel free to merge:
http://vcs.progress-linux.org/?p=packages/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;
h=26a2fd380e516f1df527c0357334eb5e10cdccb3
http://vcs.progress-linux.org/?p=packages/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;
to prevent further severity ping-pong..
Given that:
* 2.6.39 without aufs nor unionmount is not usable in *any* way for
debian-live and thus debian-live being completely broken
* 2.6.38 has aufs and is in testing
* debian-live being a part of debian where we should not release
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 00:39 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
tag 627837 patch
thanks
i've updated aufs in my own kernel tree, feel free to merge:
http://vcs.progress-linux.org/?p=packages/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;
h=26a2fd380e516f1df527c0357334eb5e10cdccb3
20 matches
Mail list logo
