Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Hi Aurelien,
Hi!
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>> - The switch to linux-libc-dev 2.6.25 is the reason why glibc currently
>> FTBFS on hppa (due to a timeout in a test). Unfortunately I don't know
>> yet which change causes the probl
Hi Aurelien,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> - The switch to linux-libc-dev 2.6.25 is the reason why glibc currently
> FTBFS on hppa (due to a timeout in a test). Unfortunately I don't know
> yet which change causes the problem, I am down to a 600 lines diff.
Ha
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > I'm having serious trouble parsing what you're trying to say here.
> > > Could you re
Any reason debian-boot was dropped from CCs?
Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
> Not to mention OLPC support; it would be *really* nice to be able to
> use d-i to install Debian onto an XO. Of course, other things
> (grub-under-OFW or just plain OFW support, jffs2 formatti
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
[...]
> >
> > I'm having serious trouble parsing what you're trying to say here.
> > Could you rephrase?
>
> you never checked the rh kernel. they do a *lot
Hi,
On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
> > grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.
> Because linux-modules-contrib-2.6 is not ready.
How is a package in contrib holding up a package in main?
rega
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > > > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > > > about uploading 2.6.26 until
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > > about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
> > hint added.
> Do you know why it hasn't moved
* Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
>
> hint added.
Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me
Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > When a new stable *is* uploaded, D-I should be able to switch
>> > faster too (at least, if there's someone willing to do the initial
>> > kernel-wedge work)
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > When a new stable *is* uploaded, D-I should be able to switch
> > faster too (at least, if there's someone willing to do the initial
> > kernel-wedge work) as the main criterium for D-I to switch to a new
> > k
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:41:57PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> maximilian attems wrote:
> > * Read-only bind mounts
> >
> > which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
> JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
> do it easily without new kernel.
no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
maximilian attems wrote:
> * Read-only bind mounts
>
> which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
do it easily without new kernel.
My 2 cents, only.
Regards,
Eugene V
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:27:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 07,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Pierre Habouzit
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
>> > > There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
>> > > longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
> > > > Changing kernel at this point
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
> > > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> > > so unless there is a big f
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
> > > longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one of them.
> >
> > testing users are currently on an u
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
> > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> > so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> > and is unbackportable (do
On Monday 07 July 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> .26 also includes at least one change I know of that is somewhat risky:
> PAT support for x86 (which could be disabled).
#d-uk just gave me this tidbit:
<...> am I missing something or will the move to .26, with libata binding
before most of the IDE stuf
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
>>> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
>>> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
>>> updates.
>> FWIW, I full
On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> > There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
> > longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one of them.
>
> testing users are currently on an unsupported kernel.
Eh, how does that follow my last para which I ass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
>> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
>> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
>> updates.
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> .26 is the release kernel.
> so i'm happy with push on it.
> .25 is a possible backup.
I'd like to get an official statement from RM team about that so we
can move it further.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
* Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
> updates.
FWIW, I fully agree. In the past, we never waited for all arches in
d-i to move to a new kernel
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:30:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> (adding d-kernel and d-release)
>
> On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
> Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
> opposed to it. Note that the
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:01PM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Frans Pop a écrit :
> > Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
> > new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
> > things we do want could be backported.
>
> As the rel
Frans Pop a écrit :
> Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
> new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
> things we do want could be backported.
As the release team is Cc:ed, I just want to make sure it is aware that
switching to 2
(adding d-kernel and d-release)
On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2,
> >> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 2.6.25-5
> >>
> >> Please wai
31 matches
Mail list logo
