[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra.
I agree it should be included. We can change the priority so it's not
automatically installed and warn people that it is experimental/might break
things in dselect's
Hi
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
Regards
--
Robbie Murray
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be great for Debian to get 2.2 in to slink, even if it is
priority extra. Debian would then be the first distribution to include
2.2. It wouldn't make the distribution unstable, because 2.0 would still
be installed by default.
Hi Joey and *...
I have noticed something in 2.2.0* that has potential to break scripts that
add net routes. If I don't include netmask whatever in the route commands,
it tells me SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument.
Relevent versions:
basically everything is recent slink, except
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
current pppd
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default
kernel
Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles
the kernel,
Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
problems.
This think about what they are doing thing is precisely one of the
reasons the extra priority does exist.
According to
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
people to install me just as an elevator buttun tells people push me.
Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and
Brian White wrote:
Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package.
Aha! Well I agree with it WRT images.
--
see shy jo
Allan M. Wind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs to
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people
do.
---end quoted text---
That's what dselect is for...you only download that which you
are going to install. By adding the 2.2.0 kernel and or source
as an extra
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
download the whole thing, but attach a note saying As 2.2 was
released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
may be problems, it might eat your computer... we
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
The kernel is stable,
How close to 3.0 does the 2.2 kernel get Debian?
- Bruce
--
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a great
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:32:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
knows.
All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
say yes, it is
On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote:
All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
say yes, it is stable with Debian.
Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
2.2.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
On 1999-01-21 19:32, Ben Collins wrote:
All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
changes to the basic setup. 3 of these are slink, one is potato. So i
say yes, it is stable with Debian.
Most
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might want to check the kernel
source's
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
changes to the basic setup.
Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS
sound modules and they failed horribly. I've never seem them like this
before. Luckily I have
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
All 4 of the Debian systems I run use 2.1.13x or 2.2.0-prex without any
changes to the basic setup.
Just to give this some counterweight: I just tried 2.1.132 with the OSS
sound modules and they failed
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports
to use. The
On 1999-01-21 19:32, John Goerzen wrote:
While the internals did change radically, the only thing most people need
concern themselves with is that the /dev/lp? number changed by one digit. I
hardly call that a radical change
Well, it of course depends on how you define radical. I had two
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed,
right?
Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion.
You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the
command-line, for instance.
I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource
On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote:
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help
though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone)
Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel
docs, there is no such thing as a SB 16 clone. There are a
Brian White wrote:
[kernel image]
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think including
It's Changes and yes I have read it:
master:/home/wind# pppd -v
pppd: unrecognized option '-v'
pppd version 2.3 patch level 5
The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
Real Question (not a snipe): Is there
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
No-one's saying this would be the default kernel. I think including a kernel
image would be
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
I'm using nothing but packages from
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:43:23PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
On 1999-01-21 17:36, Brent Fulgham wrote:
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2
Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would
Brian == Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would
Brian be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then
Heh, thats the idea. :-)
Brian wonder why things don't work.
Little things that few notice, apparently -- I
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
---end quoted text---
I think it's
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I noticed, otherwise you get some weird resource busy-error. Didn't help
though. My hardware isn't evil special.. (standard sb16 clone)
Unfortunatly, this is as evil as it gets. According to the current kernel
docs, there is no
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
of the higher-order 2.1.X kernels? You might
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
current pppd that would be compatible with the new kernel
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:00:50AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
You do know that the OSS modules in 2.1.x are drastically changed,
right?
Sure, I browse linux-kernel on occasion.
You need to provide them with the IRQs and ports that they need on the
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, David Welton wrote:
The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
knows.
Well, assuming it's an improvement on the pre-release ones, we can make a
pretty good guess :)
I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
download
hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Ivan E. Moore II, Stardate 210199.1558:
Brian, would this be too grave a violation of your no new code rule?
probably... :(
I'd say this should only apply to a not-more-then-a-month-freeze :)
until potato get's out debian would get kinda out-of-date. On the other hand,
At 11:32 PM 1/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
I'm sure you were aware that you have to upgrade your pppd to work with any
of the
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that
Brian make any difference. Both will show up in dselect and it would
Brian be trivial for someone to install the new kernel... and then
Heh, thats the idea. :-)
Brian wonder why things don't work.
Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink
and 2.2.0-final
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
I'll share that fantasy. As linux becomes more and more mainstream, it's
going to be even more difficult to dream. Of course, the reality is that
most users don't need the 2.2 kernel anyway.
unfortunately (maybe) for Debian, very few inexperienced
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
problems.
This think about what they are doing thing is precisely one of the
reasons the extra priority does
There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
people to install me just as an
Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
problems.
This think about what they are doing thing is precisely one of the
reasons the extra priority does exist.
According to this it should
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
problems.
This think about what they are doing thing is precisely one of the
reasons the extra
On Jan 22, Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it is assured that some packages will have to be patched by a
user that wants to use the new kernel, making those users go through
a little bit more effort to get the new kernel is more than offset by
reducing the amount of problems
Quoting Bob Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I also was unable to get ppp or diald to work with a later 2.1.x kernel in
a hamm system.
Documentation/Changes says the required version of ppp is 2.3.5 and hamm,
slink and potato all have this version.
Bob
I have just performed 3 different
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:43:27AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote:
Little things that few notice, apparently -- I would've sworn slink
and 2.2.0-final work perfectly until someone pointed out that
/usr/sbin/procinfo complains. Been running 2.1.1xx in production
with frozen for months.
But then
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:23:22PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
knows.
From my experience, yes. After all we also have packages that won't work
with kernel 2.0.* like pciutils.
I think we should include it, as a service to
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 08:24:37PM -0500, Allan M. Wind wrote:
Most ppl. need a printer and /dev/lp changed radically betewen 2.0 and
2.2. diald/ppp in slink does not work with 2.2.0-pre7 (on my box, at
least). I am sure that there are other things as well.
What's the problem with ppp? I run
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:13:32PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
Can you put 2.2 at least in potato ? I am using here 2.1.131 but didn't
try to upgrade to 2.2.preX as I have understood that there were some
problems. Are the problems solved ? Can I safely grab the kernel, build
it with
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have incompatibilities.
But that was changing the default
Brian White wrote:
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
people to install me just as an elevator buttun tells people push me.
Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
don't see how this could break a system. Actually building
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2 easily on a debian cdrom, and it would let us say that debian
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
I'de really like to see a kernel-image too, atleast for the non-i386 ports
to use. The 2.2
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release. The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it since 2.1.120. Plus, it would be a great technical feature of our distribution that might give us some bragging rights over the other distros.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:17:26PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
I say let's make the 2.2 image a high-profile aspect of slink's release.
The kernel is very stable, and I've been running my Debian system on it
The kernel is stable, but is the kernel + debian stable? No one
knows.
I think we
I think we should include it, as a service to people who don't want to
download the whole thing, but attach a note saying As 2.2 was
released just before we released slink, we are including it, but there
may be problems, it might eat your computer... we are not responsible
for anything
65 matches
Mail list logo
