On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:35:15AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 16:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > Don't they require autofs5 to be of any use though? That's not going
> > to be in fc until it's out of beta I guess.
>
> Not really?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 16:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:07:27AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > >> Indeed.
> > >> Which kernel can you use?
> > >> I believe that 2200 had
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:07 -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> >> Indeed.
> >> Which kernel can you use?
> >> I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
> >> later than that?
> >
> > I've
Olivier Galibert wrote:
>> If you get the patches into -stable they will end up in Fedora
>> kernels automatically. 2288 (based on 2.6.19) is in testing now...
>
> Don't they require autofs5 to be of any use though? That's not going
> to be in fc until it's out of beta I guess.
I didn't realize
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:07:27AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> >> Indeed.
> >> Which kernel can you use?
> >> I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
> >> later than that?
> >
> >
Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
>> Indeed.
>> Which kernel can you use?
>> I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
>> later than that?
>
> I've ported your patch to 2257 (nothing special, only moved lines),
> and it
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:50 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > Indeed.
> > Which kernel can you use?
> > I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
> > later than that?
>
> I've ported your patch to 2257
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> Indeed.
> Which kernel can you use?
> I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
> later than that?
I've ported your patch to 2257 (nothing special, only moved lines),
and it seems to work beautifully. I'm
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
later than that?
I've ported your patch to 2257 (nothing special, only moved lines),
and it seems to work beautifully. I'm
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:50 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
later than that?
I've ported your patch to 2257 (nothing special,
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
later than that?
I've ported your patch to 2257 (nothing special, only moved lines),
and it seems to
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:07:27AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
later than that?
I've ported your
Olivier Galibert wrote:
If you get the patches into -stable they will end up in Fedora
kernels automatically. 2288 (based on 2.6.19) is in testing now...
Don't they require autofs5 to be of any use though? That's not going
to be in fc until it's out of beta I guess.
I didn't realize you
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:07 -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel
later than that?
I've ported your patch to
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 16:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:07:27AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:52:39AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
Indeed.
Which kernel can you use?
I believe that 2200 had another problem so can
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:35:15AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 16:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
Don't they require autofs5 to be of any use though? That's not going
to be in fc until it's out of beta I guess.
Not really?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:57 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > It may be better to update to a later kernel so I
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
It may be better to update to a later kernel so I don't have
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:57 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > It may be better to update to a later kernel so I don't have to port the
> > > patch to several different kernels. Is
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
It may be better to update to a later kernel so I don't have to port the
patch to several different kernels. Is that
22 matches
Mail list logo
