On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:32 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:52:02 -0400, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Zaitcev had something that tracked the Fedora tree, but I never
> > found time to look at what he did.
>
> You mean this?
> http://git.fedoraproject.org/?p=kern
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
The minimalist approach that comes to mind is to make all the %define
build* bits all set to 1/enabled by default, and only flip them to
disabled where appropriate, so they'd be equivalent to your allow* idea,
in that if you disable them at the top of t
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:24:44PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I'd love to have a tool which would slurp bugdata out of our bz and
> > allow me to edit it if necessary, and then push a submit upstream button.
>
> dkl is long on notice of how snazzy this would be, for sourceware bugzilla,
On 29/03/07, Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clinton Lee Taylor wrote:
> Greetings ...
>
> I for one would like to vote for rpms of vanilla kernel build!
>
> I have an Adaptec ASR-3410S, which is an i2o device, but since
> 2.6.18-1.2869.fc6, I can't use it and the i2o maintaner suggests
Clinton Lee Taylor wrote:
> Greetings ...
>
> I for one would like to vote for rpms of vanilla kernel build!
>
> I have an Adaptec ASR-3410S, which is an i2o device, but since
> 2.6.18-1.2869.fc6, I can't use it and the i2o maintaner suggests I try a
> vanilla kernel build to see if it's an FC ke
Greetings ...
I for one would like to vote for rpms of vanilla kernel build!
I have an Adaptec ASR-3410S, which is an i2o device, but since
2.6.18-1.2869.fc6, I can't use it and the i2o maintaner suggests I try a
vanilla kernel build to see if it's an FC kernel problem or a general
problem, but
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Apparently the qlogic drivers don't have any firmware included in FC7,
so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the
kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the
firmware goes i
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Apparently the qlogic drivers don't have any firmware included in FC7,
so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the
kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the
firmware goes in the kernel package?
I personally prefer for it to
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Apparently the qlogic drivers don't have any firmware included in FC7,
> so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the
> kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the
> firmware goes in the kernel
> I'd love to have a tool which would slurp bugdata out of our bz and
> allow me to edit it if necessary, and then push a submit upstream button.
dkl is long on notice of how snazzy this would be, for sourceware bugzilla,
gnome bugzilla, etc, etc. It was always "after bugzilla infrastructure
upgr
Apparently the qlogic drivers don't have any firmware included in FC7,
so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the
kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the
firmware goes in the kernel package?
Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to loa
So after a little discussion with the SELinux folks it looks like we
want to turn this option on in FC7 as well. This should not be changed
for old fedora releases. This option will enable secmark by default
instead of the legacy network hooks for selinux. It should reduce the
selinux overhead o
Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> The minimalist approach that comes to mind is to make all the %define
> build* bits all set to 1/enabled by default, and only flip them to
> disabled where appropriate, so they'd be equivalent to your allow* idea,
> in that if you disable them at the top of the spec, they'd
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > I was thinking about adding someth
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 12:35 -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
>
> > Right before FC6 we turned off CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK_XFRM since there
> > was a lot of development still going on in that areas especially
> > concerning secid reconciliation between that and se
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> Dave Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> > Dave Jones wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>> > > > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec f
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> > Dave Jones wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> > > > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
>> > > > at the begin
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
> > > > at the beginning:
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:52:02 -0400, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zaitcev had something that tracked the Fedora tree, but I never
> found time to look at what he did.
You mean this?
http://git.fedoraproject.org/?p=kernel/zaitcev/linux-2.6-volk.git;a=summary
I still have it, but the aut
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 20:36 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:50:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> > > And maybe also a common bugzilla?
> >
> > http://bugme.osdl.org :-)
> >
>
> Would it be an idea to automaticly (cron job, whatever) forward k
Dave Jones schrieb:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> AFAIK ubuntu includes a patch to allow dynamic loading of alternate AML code
> dumps, to work around bios ACPI bugs. I know BIOS's and the kernel ACPI code
> are getting betterm but for some
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 08:36:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:50:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> > > And maybe also a common bugzilla?
> >
> > http://bugme.osdl.org :-)
> >
>
> Would it be an idea to automaticly (cron job, wha
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:50:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> And maybe also a common bugzilla?
http://bugme.osdl.org :-)
Would it be an idea to automaticly (cron job, whatever) forward kernel bugs
there and to add tracking of the upstream bug to the Fedora bug?
I kn
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
> > > at the beginning:
> > >
> > > %define allowup 1
> > > %defin
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 13:46 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:37:13PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +++ kernel-2.6.spec
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
> > at the beginning:
> >
> > %define allowup 1
> > %define allowsmp 1
> > %define allowpae 1
> > %define allowxen 1
> > %define allowdoc
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
> Right before FC6 we turned off CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK_XFRM since there
> was a lot of development still going on in that areas especially
> concerning secid reconciliation between that and secmark. The
> reconciliation work was killed upstream and XFRM la
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
> at the beginning:
>
> %define allowup 1
> %define allowsmp 1
> %define allowpae 1
> %define allowxen 1
> %define allowdoc 1
> %define allowdump 1
> %define
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> The actual patches we carry are rarely the cause the problems that get
> reported.
> It's fairly uncommon for us to change drivers other than perhaps the
> occasional compile fix which usually goes upstream quickly. Yet that's
> by far where most of the bugs that get report
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> AFAIK ubuntu includes a patch to allow dynamic loading of alternate AML code
> dumps, to work around bios ACPI bugs. I know BIOS's and the kernel ACPI code
> are getting betterm but for some laptops this is needed,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:50:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the thread about adding support to the kernel spec file to build a
> vanilla kernel, I had this crazy (really crazy) idea:
>
> Wouldn't it be great to share one kernel package or atleast one kernel
> sou
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:37:13PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >> +++ kernel-2.6.spec 2007-03-29 06:04:16.0 -0400
> >> @@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@
> >>
> >>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:37:13PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +++ kernel-2.6.spec 2007-03-29 06:04:16.0 -0400
> >> @@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@
> >>
> >> # unpack
I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
at the beginning:
%define allowup 1
%define allowsmp 1
%define allowpae 1
%define allowxen 1
%define allowdoc 1
%define allowdump 1
%define allowheaders 1
%define allowdebug 1
Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various
Hi all,
AFAIK ubuntu includes a patch to allow dynamic loading of alternate AML code
dumps, to work around bios ACPI bugs. I know BIOS's and the kernel ACPI code
are getting betterm but for some laptops this is needed, any chance this could
be included into the Fedora kernel?
Also any chance
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+++ kernel-2.6.spec 2007-03-29 06:04:16.0 -0400
@@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@
# unpack sparse.
if [ ! -d sparse-%{sparsever} ] ; then
-%setup -T -D -a 3 -q
+%setup -D -T -q -a3
fi
This
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +++ kernel-2.6.spec 2007-03-29 06:04:16.0 -0400
>> @@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@
>>
>> # unpack sparse.
>> if [ ! -d sparse-%{sparsever} ] ; then
>> -%setup -T -D -a 3 -q
>> +%setup -D -T
Hi all,
Reading the thread about adding support to the kernel spec file to build a
vanilla kernel, I had this crazy (really crazy) idea:
Wouldn't it be great to share one kernel package or atleast one kernel source
(as in pristine source + patches) between different distro's?
The kernel is
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:29:21 -0400, Prarit Bhargava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +++ kernel-2.6.spec 2007-03-29 06:04:16.0 -0400
> @@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@
>
> # unpack sparse.
> if [ ! -d sparse-%{sparsever} ] ; then
> -%setup -T -D -a 3 -q
> +%setup -D -T -q -a3
> fi
This looks nice
Eric Paris wrote:
> Right before FC6 we turned off CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK_XFRM since there
> was a lot of development still going on in that areas especially
> concerning secid reconciliation between that and secmark. The
> reconciliation work was killed upstream and XFRM labeling has been
> work
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 12:21 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> Right before FC6 we turned off CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK_XFRM since there
> was a lot of development still going on in that areas especially
> concerning secid reconciliation between that and secmark. The
> reconciliation work was killed upstrea
Right before FC6 we turned off CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK_XFRM since there
was a lot of development still going on in that areas especially
concerning secid reconciliation between that and secmark. The
reconciliation work was killed upstream and XFRM labeling has been
worked on upstream and has been
Currently, rpmbuild -bp kernel-2.6.spec does
/usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/sparse-0.2.tar.bz2
tar -xvvf -
which displays the directory of what has been untarred:
drwxrwxrwx git/git 0 2006-12-05 06:22:44 sparse-0.2/
(snip 123 lines)
I'm not sure if the full directory listi
Hi,
I (with DaveJ) help maintain the kernel release notes for Fedora. A user
suggested a
while back that we remove the building instructions from the release notes and
put those in a separate doc devoted to more detailed instructions on building
the kernel RPM (including applying patches and conf
This is enough for "make vanilla-scratch-build" to work (or vanilla-i686,
vanilla-compile, etc). It might even be enough for "make vanilla-tag
vanilla-build", but I'd have to check it in to test that kludge.
Attached below is my linux-2.6.17-nonintconfig.patch, my old replacement
for linux-2.6-bu
45 matches
Mail list logo
