pn client runs fine on smp 2) if it doesn't, vpnc works
reasonably well to replace it and 3) you can likely just boot the
current smp-enabled kernel with maxcpus=1 added to the command line
to get up behavior if you absolutely must run the cisco vpn client in
a single-pro
> - with frequency default governor set to Performance
>
> - with preemptible kernel
>
> - with rt2860 module support
>
> - with NTFS read/write support
>
>
>
> Well, it ended up building i686-PAE Debug kernel with SMP support.
>
>
>
> It see
n which case, its lacking all the
patches Fedora has added, and therein probably lies your answer to why
things are behaving differently).
--
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Fedora doesn't support ECC on AMD systems, but RHEL
> does!
The k8_edac module in RHEL5 is there via an out-of-tree patch. I can't recall
why, but upstream had issues with the code, so it has yet to be merged into
Linus' kernel, thus the reason
needed for F10 and earlier, since they're
still using squashfs v3, even for the 2.6.29.x builds. Will just let it
trickle in via upstream for the devel branch.
--
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@red
let me know what works best.
It'll get picked up via an upstream rebase long before then. I saw it
last night in rc7-git2, and that or later is bound to be pulled into
rawhide long before April (its likely to get in today).
--
Jarod Wilson
put into kernel-firmware as part of the kernel's firmware "build"
process, so as long as they're part of the kernel, yeah, they'll be there.
> - Is there a long term goal to bring all the firmware from alsa-firmware
>upstream into the kernel-firmware packa
wrong. A
patches subdir would certainly clean things up considerably, and then I think
a constant patch name prefix matters a lot less (certainly still could stand
to apply some standard formula to naming, of course, but it wouldn't impact
tab completion near as much anymore).
--
Jarod Wi
On Friday 10 October 2008 20:37:24 Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 05:55:50PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Friday 10 October 2008 17:27:00 Chris Snook wrote:
> > > Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed th
he
> name becomes misleading once we rebase. When there's a suitable upstream
> patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably
> use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it
> corresponds to upstream.
Yeah, I'd
27;ll be adding this feature to
> module-init-tools...I think it's the least worst option right now.
We should definitely all strive for this -- Fedora: we're your least worst
option! :D
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kerne
tup.
>
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458622
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
for now. I will
> continue to debug this as it certainly _should_ boot just fine without
> this set. Even if we just turn it on for ia64 that works for me (but I
> imagine some new big x86_64 systems may run into it once they grow this
> large).
Just committe
John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 07:43:49PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We could also, if so desired, install the split-out changelog as a %doc
file, the thought being that not everyone knows to look at &
Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 01:13:26PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Been toying with the idea of splitting the changelog out of the kernel spec
> itself, to reduce the size of the spec file. Basically, instead of %changelog
> followed by all th
s all the usual changelog entries. Its
reasonably trivial to implement, though my current hack-around for 'make clog'
complains about me redefining the clog target. Is shaving 800+ lines out of
the spec file (only to put them in another file) worth the hassle though?
--
Jaro
same pass as the kernel-docs sub-package, so it *shouldn't* be built in
the same pass as the kernel. Is this flag to simply override that and build
the firmware as an arch-specific package for simplified one-off builds?
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
> How does that sound?
Mostly sane. System policy dictating governor over the ugliness we do in the
cpuspeed init script would be nice. Even nicer would be if we could outright
get rid of the initscript (not sure what people who need the cpuspeed daemon
are to do in that c
Don Zickus wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:57AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Don Zickus wrote:
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Should the package own the /lib/firmware/ directory?
Ideally we'll want kernel-firmware to
Jarod Wilson wrote:
We were trying to do this with RHEL (jcm was working on this). One
of the
issues I brought up (which no one had a solution for) was the case
for a
bad firmware for storage devices. Currently they are built into the
kernel. So if you stumble upon bad firmware, you just
nternally.
Could still be an issue for any device that doesn't get brought up until we've
already spun up the kernel and initrd -- i.e., system boots off internal disk,
later during boot, brings up external storage on fibre channel adapter, which
loads its firmware from
pulling in umpteen individual firmware packages (a la xorg-x11-drivers), but I
like this idea better.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 08:39 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Not quite sure. udev owns it right now. Could have multiple ownership so as to
not Requires: udev. Could possibly be something that should move to the
filesystem package. I think I might lean toward making that
e to the
filesystem package. I think I might lean toward making that directory owned by
filesystem, so you have singular ownership and both udev and kernel-firmware
can use it without either one explicitly requiring the other.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
e it noarch without much effort -- remember, the kernel
is a special beast that actually does get a noarch build pass done on it for
kernel-docs. No reason kernel-firmware couldn't be spit out from the same
build run, so far as I know.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ect.org/wiki/BuildingUpstreamKernel
and this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/CustomKernel
should help.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Saturday 03 May 2008 10:35:37 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday 03 May 2008 12:37:22 am Koji Build System wrote:
> > Package: kernel-2.6.25.1-1.fc10
> > Tag: dist-f10
> > Status: failed
[...]
> > Failed tasks:
> > -
> >
> > Task 59387
On Saturday 03 May 2008 12:37:22 am Koji Build System wrote:
> Package: kernel-2.6.25.1-1.fc10
> Tag: dist-f10
> Status: failed
> Built by: jwilson
> ID: 47960
> Started: Sat, 03 May 2008 03:42:41 UTC
> Finished: Sat, 03 May 2008 04:20:53 UTC
> Changelog:
> * Fri May 0
possible to make it work on other systems as well, and I'm sure Martin
> > would be happy to merge patches that did that. You can find more details
> > about the project at
> >
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Apport
> >
> > and the code at
> >
> &g
correct at a glance... Do you kernel-devel installed? If
not, build will be a dangling symlink...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 10:09:17 am Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 09:52 +0200, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 15:19 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > We recently tweaked the main kernel package's spec file such that we now
e issues are resolved?
Done.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
ed
> above).
>
> You also removed another one that I did not remove. That one permitted
> either %{KVERREL}.flavor or %{KVERREL}flavor to match. I think that one is
> indeed no longer needed. It was originally -? rather than \.? and was to
> match /lib/modules/RELflavor as well as
to worry
about paths with or without %{_target_cpu} in 'em.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
ypo I
inserted earlier. Yanking it works for me.
> The other differences are \. instead of . for matching
> literal . in two places.
Ah, that's even better. Forgot this is essentially regex passed down to
find-debuginfo.sh... I'll
On Monday 31 March 2008 01:17:59 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 03:00:00 am Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Updating my rawhide box, I found:
> >
> > kernel-debuginfo i686 2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9 rawhide-debuginfo 47 k
> &
overall, I just haven't got all the bits getting into the right
sub-packages. Working on fixing that now.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
a local build now that eliminates the DevelLink and uses your
suggestion above for DevelDir, and makes use of %{KVERREL}-%{Flavour} right
now, which as discussed on irc, looks more correct to both of us. :)
i.e., this changes uname -r for kernel-PAE from 2.6.25-1.fc9.i686PAE to
2.6.25-1.fc9.i686-PAE, and all paths laid down are changed accordingly.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 03:01:29 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> One comment:
>
> On 25.03.2008 21:43, Jarod Wilson (jwilson) wrote:
> > Author: jwilson
> >
> > Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/kernel/devel
> > In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 03:28:37 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 12:54:07 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 12:49:28 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 08:58:00 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > On 25.03.
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 12:54:07 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 12:49:28 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 08:58:00 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 25.03.2008 13:47, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 02:02
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 12:49:28 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 08:58:00 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 25.03.2008 13:47, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 02:02:04 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> On 24.03.2008 20:53,
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 08:58:00 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 25.03.2008 13:47, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 02:02:04 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 24.03.2008 20:53, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >>> On Monday 24 March 2008 03:32:37 pm Dave Jon
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 02:02:04 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 24.03.2008 20:53, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008 03:32:37 pm Dave Jones wrote:
> >> I took a stab at bz 197065 and arrived at the patch below.
> >> Would appreciate some eyeballs
many things that'll go boom if its not there
after some discussion on irc (and on this list).
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
> +/sbin/new-kernel-pkg --package kernel%{?-v:-%{-v*}} --rpmposttrans %{?1}
> %{KVERREL}%{?-v*}.
%{_arch} || exit $?\ %{nil}
I suspect this will make new-kernel-package very unhappy, since I think its
expecting to be fed what
essentially amounts to $(uname -r).
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMA
i will have it, barring
someone beating me with a cluebat and turning it back off... :)
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 10:36:12 am davide rossetti wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2008 4:11 PM, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:56:53 am davide rossetti wrote:
> > > As soon as I unwrapped my brand new Core 2 Quad, I discovered that
, and if you
can't find one, yell at HP. :)
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
k will work on
the system, but it doesn't find supported hardware. Rather than leaving a
useless module loaded, we do some clean-up in this case.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Monday 11 February 2008 02:01:01 pm Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:54:25PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Monday 11 February 2008 12:53:40 pm Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > > git trees:
> > > firewire - commented out, pending didn't apply
>
things up after the rebase.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 03:47:26 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:55:08 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:17:17 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > Roland, I don't suppose any of the recent changes I seem to recall
>
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:55:08 pm Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:17:17 pm Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Roland, I don't suppose any of the recent changes I seem to recall
> > > hearing you were going to make to debuginfo might have anyt
tually made any yet.
D'oh, didn't realize that, sorry. Okay, back to the drawing board... :)
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 11:05:44 am Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Roland, I don't suppose any of the recent changes I seem to recall hearing
> you were going to make to debuginfo might have anything to do with this...
Further prodding reveals its not a case of us winding up with extra fi
Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:57:18 am Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:47:16 am Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:48:21 -0500, Build System
to an
immediate upgrade from 2.6.23, but I'd assume if testing goes well with
2.6.24, we'll move to it fairly soon.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/
her
> why not j-rod ?
> I think he meant he's not a fan of editing twice.
> not that he wasn't a fan of quilt.
> oh
> i always forget to do one or the other :\
First glance says oh hell yeah, check it in.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Descr
e (tpm_tools, trousers)
>
> So is this something that can just be enabled, or would you like me to
> open a bugzilla for this?
Kyle already did it.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
any of the TPM kernel stuff.
However, I believe trousers has been submitted for fedora review, and
was close to being accepted if it hasn't been already.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> In the thread I started about Fedora perhaps being to cutting edge, it
>>> was said that I shouldn't complain as there is only one problem left
>>> with the juju stack which is a bu
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> David Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:44 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> No, according to what several people saw with VT630x in OHCI 1.0 mode,
>>> there is still the bug that the DMA program stops after receiving one or
>>> a fe
as really hoping the dynamic buffer
allocation patch might help too, thinking maybe these cards were just
exhausting the buffer and getting wedged, but no dice.
Oh, I should also mention that I get some lockdep spew w/the dynamic buffer
alloc patch added to the mix... (will get that report o
dhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415841
>
> As far as I understood, this presumably happens because the problem
> which David Moore addressed with "fw-ohci: Fix for dualbuffer
> three-or-more buffers" is also present but unfixed in the
> packet-per-buffer code.
I can probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> In the thread I started about Fedora perhaps being to cutting edge, it
>> was said that I shouldn't complain as there is only one problem left
>> with the juju stack which is a bu
hall I put this in bugzilla?
Might as well. Some of it is already there, but nothing iidc-specific yet.
> If so against which component?
I'd file it against kernel, but assign it to me and cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[*]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/
Thomas J. Baker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 16:47 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> Thomas J. Baker wrote:
>>> I've got a Precision 490 that hangs at reboot unless I use reboot=bios
>>> on the kernel command line. A bug filed against the kernel should
>>> i
gs. I've got a Precision 490 here that reboots just peachy.
Dell actually has bios updates that can be done from Linux on these boxes.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list
n be done by carrying the git-alsa-mm
> > patch from the -mm kernel.
>
> Sounds good to me.
Likewise.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Just take a look at the source to any of the umpteen modules in the
kernel... May also want to visit http://kernelnewbies.org/.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing
re
> # building. Rather than incrementing forever, as with the prior versioning
I generally just use buildid for the same, i.e., I set buildid to .xyz1,
.xyz2, .xyz3, etc as I rebuild a newer versions. I think its probably
not worth the extra lines added to the spec file (which, by th
sually works for me, anyhow).
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
of the upstream
kernel config file, and go from there.
> On 11/12/07, *Jarod Wilson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Feng Xian wrote:
> > Thanks for all your help. I ran into another problem.
> >
> > My 16-cor
can't figure
out what's going wrong there on your own, you probably shouldn't be
building your own.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
ppen automagically, just because you enabled smp
in the kernel config.
- --
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHN5CdtO+bni+75QMRAsORAJsHxl06Z/pqEttj085JP5qPXOanI
ntaining debug info. (But on Fedora 8 it will.)
I vaguely recall seeing a bug about this one, and I thought the solution
was to set _ALIGH and _START to the same value, but these are only vague
recollections...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
hat option, stripping didn't happen. The above
seems like a sane remedy to me.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
orm a wierd kind of hand twister to get it to work as it now
> > requires Ctrl+Alt+Fn+F1.
Just as an fyi, this is also the case on my 2+ year old PowerBook G4.
And I'm pretty sure it was also the case on the iBook I had prior to
that, which I got roughly 5 years ago.
--
Jarod Wilson
and we don't have to carry patches to lower the feature's
> overhead and make its API match 2.6.23's.
Saw that one too. Turning it on just in F8 sounds sane to me.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Its been added to the build, and is working its way through the build
system right now. Local build worked, but that was just one arch and
variant, so here's hoping it makes it through the gamut.
Ran into a hiccup on ppc64, but got that ironed out, and the second try
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> All of the work Eric and I did over the weekend is now in a proper git
> tree, which can be browsed (and cloned) here:
>
> http://git.wilsonet.com/linux-2.6-lirc.git/
I restructured the order of commits a bit, so if anyone did a checkout
before noon eastern
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> So... As I've mentioned on various forums here and there in the
>>> recent past, I'd really like to see fedora carry the lirc drivers
>>> (http://ww
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Hey all,
So... As I've mentioned on various forums here and there in the recent
past, I'd really like to see fedora carry the lirc drivers
(http://www.lirc.org/) in-kernel, and help push them into the upstream
kernel. I finally got aroun
les/2.6.23-0.133.rc3.git6.lirc1.fc8/kernel/drivers/input/lirc/lirc_sir/lirc_sir.ko/lib/modules/2.6.23-0.133.rc3.git6.lirc1.fc7/kernel/drivers/input/lirc/lirc_streamzap/lirc_streamzap.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.23-0.133.rc3.git6.lirc1.fc8/kernel/drivers/input/lirc/lirc_ttusbir/lirc_ttusbir.ko
T
represented on this list already. but I've no objection.
Note that we can't currently build kernel and kernel-vanilla in the same
rpmbuild pass. Further changes to the spec would be needed to make that
doable, but if they aren't going in the official repo, perhaps we don&#
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
The signature sections are identical. Triple-checked that I was
comparing with the ext3.ko from the initrd that booted the system.
[...]
To make it even more interesting:
# cd /lib/modules/2.6.23-0.104.rc3.vsc.fc8/kernel/drivers/net/e1000
# insmod
booting with "debug" to see those msgs.
>> Sure, I'll add that too.
>
> Also hack modsign.sh to pass -v to mod-extract. The logs from mod-extract
> for a given module and the printks from verification looking at that module
> should give us something to go on.
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 17:25 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> Is there a reason to add a hack to the kernel %post in particular,
>>> instead of just making people use rpm triggers? I mean, horror and all
>>> tha
On the surface, I don't see why the couldn't. I suppose we should prod
Matt Domsch on why he's against using triggers for dkms, since his
objection in the bug doesn't list any details...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
D
use a hang or failure.
I'd be happy to take a crack at implementation.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
ious hiccup then.
>
> Did you save your rpmbuild log? Can you double-check that it has no
> debugedit or find-debuginfo.sh runs that follow the modsign.sh runs?
I didn't save it, but I can do a rebuild with the same options.
> Also, you could try setting MODSIGN_
initrd and bounced the box... And there's the
expected kernel panic. So now I'm thoroughly confused as to where the
hell the modules that at least booted the system came from...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_
it really
> succeed at boot-time insmods and then modprobe fails?
Looks like it really succeeded at boot-time insmods, I've got dm_*,
ata_piix, ata_generic, libata, sd_mod, scsi_mod, ext3, jbd, mbcache and
{e,o,u}hci_hcd modules all loaded.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signat
el.spec fixed.
> Are you using the current spec?
That was from revision 1.87.
>> Best guess is that something goes haywire since I did this build
>> '--without debuginfo'.
>=20
> I can't see how that would break the fix for module signing.
Was just a gues
l build *does* appear to be
related. I can't load any modules:
# modprobe e1000
FATAL: Error inserting e1000 (/lib/modules/.../e1000.ko): Key was
rejected by service.
Best guess is that something goes haywire since I did this build
'--without debuginfo'.
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL
+ cd kernel-2.6.22
+ rm -rf /var/tmp/kernel-2.6.23-0.104.rc3.vsc.fc8-root-x86_64
+ exit 0
Executing(--clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.42722
+ umask 022
+ cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD
+ rm -rf kernel-2.6.22
+ exit 0
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signatur
en this message in a few
bugzilla subjects now...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:22:08PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> Actually the 0. prefix is not neccessary it is a leftover from 3rd
>>> party techniques to indicate vendor hierarchies, but it's difficult
>>> to knock out people's he
f the same
git snap, you have to worry about it, but we don't want to have to muck
around with that manually. That being the case, putting it after the
leading 0 for git snaps, automatically incremented over the period
leading up to the next kernel release, in line
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
