sure: of her eyes were the eyes.

[Eddie]

Surely we saw the table the wounds in southern climes sure she knew he'd found 
a the bodies were to pay the raw and


agpae.gif
Description: GIF image

Bug#391384: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: Compaq Proliant DL380 fails to boot

[Grant Grundler]

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 04:16:58PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> No I mean the message from Yanko Kaneti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which says,
...

Yanko-san didn't have his facts quite right though I agree his
conclusion is correct:

linux-2.6.18/include/linux/pci_ids.h says:
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C1510   0x000a
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C1510   0x0010


>  I have with me a Compaq dl380 with the same lspci output and sym2 from
>  the latest kernel tree still claims the raid. I believe the tweak for
>  PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C1510 in sym_glue.c should also be applied to
>  PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C1510 to fix this for good."

I didn't know Compaq used two different 53[cC]510 parts.
Patch below adds the same tweak to the 0x0010 device ID.

James or willy, this look good to you?

thanks,
grant

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c 
b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c
index 52abce4..defca91 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_glue.c
@@ -2093,7 +2093,7 @@ static struct pci_device_id sym2_id_tabl
{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_LSI_LOGIC, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C875,
  PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0UL },
{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_LSI_LOGIC, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C1510,
- PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0UL }, /* new */
+ PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI<<8,  0x00, 0UL },
{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_LSI_LOGIC, PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C895A,
  PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0UL },
{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_LSI_LOGIC, PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C875A,


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#391867: "port is slow to respond" on computer with SATA disk

[liangzi]

Package: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686
Version: 2.6.18-2

Mine is a Dell machine with SATA disk, I am using Debian sid, with
debian official kernel 2.6.18.
On boot time, it says:

ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xFE00 ctl 0xFE12 bmdma 0xFEA0 irq 58
ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xFE20 ctl 0xFE32 bmdma 0xFEA8 irq 58
scsi0 : ata_piix
ata1.00: ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 15625 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
ata1.00: ata1: dev 0 multi count 8
ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
scsi1 : ata_piix
ata2: port is slow to respond, please be patient
ata2: port failed to respond (30 secs)
ata2: SRST failed (status 0xFF)
ata2: SRST failed (err_mask=0x100)
ata2: softreset failed, retrying in 5 secs
ata2: SRST failed (status 0xFF)
ata2: SRST failed (err_mask=0x100)
ata2: softreset failed, retrying in 5 secs
ata2: SRST failed (status 0xFF)
ata2: SRST failed (err_mask=0x100)
ata2: reset failed, giving up
Vendor: ATA Model: ST380013AS Rev: 8.12
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05

Following is full `dmesg` and `lspci` result. Also, after searching the
web,
I found someone said that this may be a libata-core.c thing, so I report
this
here.

[~]$ dmesg
Linux version 2.6.18-1-686 (Debian 2.6.18-2) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc
version 4.1.2 20060920 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-14)) #1 SMP Fri Sep 29
16:25:40 UTC 2006
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
BIOS-e820:  - 000a (usable)
BIOS-e820: 000f - 0010 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 0010 - 1f686c00 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 1f686c00 - 1f688c00 (ACPI NVS)
BIOS-e820: 1f688c00 - 1f68ac00 (ACPI data)
BIOS-e820: 1f68ac00 - 2000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: e000 - f000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: fec0 - fed00400 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: fed2 - feda (reserved)
BIOS-e820: fee0 - fef0 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: ffb0 - 0001 (reserved)
0MB HIGHMEM available.
502MB LOWMEM available.
found SMP MP-table at 000fe710
On node 0 totalpages: 128646
DMA zone: 4096 pages, LIFO batch:0
Normal zone: 124550 pages, LIFO batch:31
DMI 2.3 present.
ACPI: RSDP (v000 DELL ) @ 0x000fec00
ACPI: RSDT (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcc05
ACPI: FADT (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcc45
ACPI: SSDT (v001 DELL st_ex 0x1000 MSFT 0x010d) @ 0xfffd3808
ACPI: MADT (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fccb9
ACPI: BOOT (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcd2b
ACPI: ASF! (v016 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcd53
ACPI: MCFG (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcdba
ACPI: HPET (v001 DELL GX280 0x0007 ASL 0x0061) @ 0x000fcdf8
ACPI: DSDT (v001 DELL dt_ex 0x1000 MSFT 0x010d) @ 0x
ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x808
ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee0
ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled)
Processor #0 15:4 APIC version 20
ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x01] disabled)
ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x01] disabled)
ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x04] lapic_id[0x07] disabled)
ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0xff] high level lint[0x1])
ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x08] address[0xfec0] gsi_base[0])
IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 8, version 32, address 0xfec0, GSI 0-23
ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl)
ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 high level)
ACPI: IRQ0 used by override.
ACPI: IRQ2 used by override.
ACPI: IRQ9 used by override.
Enabling APIC mode: Flat. Using 1 I/O APICs
ACPI: HPET id: 0x8086a201 base: 0xfed0
Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information
Allocating PCI resources starting at 3000 (gap: 2000:c000)
Detected 2793.497 MHz processor.
Built 1 zonelists. Total pages: 128646
Kernel command line: root=/dev/sda1 ro vga=791
mapped APIC to d000 (fee0)
mapped IOAPIC to c000 (fec0)
Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done.
Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done.
Initializing CPU#0
PID hash table entries: 2048 (order: 11, 8192 bytes)
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
Dentry cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
Memory: 505668k/514584k available (1534k kernel code, 8416k reserved,
575k data, 196k init, 0k highmem)
Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok.
hpet0: at MMIO 0xfed0 (virtual 0xe000), IRQs 2, 8, 0
hpet0: 3 64-bit timers, 14318180 Hz
Using HPET for base-timer
Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 5591.07 BogoMIPS
(lpj=11182147)
Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized
SELinux: Disabled at boot.
Capability LSM initialized
Mount-cache hash table entries: 512
CPU: After generic identify, caps: bfebfbff 0010  
441d  
CPU: After vendor identify, caps: bfebfbff 0010  
441d  
monitor/mwait feature present.
using mwait in idle th

Bug#391384: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: Compaq Proliant DL380 fails to boot

[James Bottomley]

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 21:16 -0600, Grant Grundler wrote:
> I didn't know Compaq used two different 53[cC]510 parts.
> Patch below adds the same tweak to the 0x0010 device ID.
> 
> James or willy, this look good to you?

It seems reasonable.

Can we get confirmation from the bug submitter that it actually fixes
the problem?

James




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Processed: linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> clone 391451 -1
Bug#391451: Error detecting hard drive
Bug 391451 cloned as bug 391861.

> reassign -1 linux-2.6
Bug#391861: Error detecting hard drive
Bug reassigned from package `linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6' to `linux-2.6'.

> retitle -1 linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver
Bug#391861: Error detecting hard drive
Changed Bug title.

> block 391451 with -1
Bug#391451: Error detecting hard drive
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Blocking bugs of 391451 added: 391861

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver

[Frans Pop]

clone 391451 -1
reassign -1 linux-2.6
retitle -1 linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver
block 391451 with -1
thanks

> The on-board hard drive (40 GB Fujitsu MHT2040AS, 2.5", parallel ATA) is
> not detected.  lspci shows the driver as an AMD 8111, but neither the
> kernel nor /lib/modules seem to have the amd74xx driver.

Please enable this ide driver for powerpc. It seems to be needed.

Cheers,
FJP

P.S. It would be really great if the powerpc kernel maintainer would do 
his own basic research before crying that it is a d-i problem and making 
the D-I release manager do his work for him.
This has been the _last time_ I have looked into things for powerpc as in 
almost all cases I only have to find out that the problem *is not in the 
installer*!
The Debian powerpc port needs more active porters


pgprmsktUFB8w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#391384: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: Compaq Proliant DL380 fails to boot

[Matt Taggart]

James Bottomley writes...

> Er ... you mean the email that I sent pointing to a fix in the
> scsi-rc-fixes tree?  Then yes, I think it's a correct fix.  It's already
> in 2.6.18

No I mean the message from Yanko Kaneti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which says,

 "Correct me if I am wrong but the fix mentioned above and already in the
 main kernel tree references PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C1510 which is 0x0009
 The lspci output given before that says 00:01.0 0104: 1000:0010 (rev 02)
 that is 0x0010 -> PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C1510.

 I have with me a Compaq dl380 with the same lspci output and sym2 from
 the latest kernel tree still claims the raid. I believe the tweak for
 PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_53C1510 in sym_glue.c should also be applied to
 PCI_DEVICE_ID_NCR_53C1510 to fix this for good."

-- 
Matt Taggart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Processed: preinst: ( "configure" && [ -n "$2" ] ) or ( "configure" && [ -z "$2" ] ) ?

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> reopen 391619
Bug#391619: p{re,ost}insts' comments contradict each other.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#391384: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: Compaq Proliant DL380 fails to boot

[Matt Taggart]

dann frazier writes...

> hey Grant/James,
>   It looks like we're still having cpqarray/sym2 conflicts under
> 2.6.18 - any idea what this problem may be?

This is for dl380. At the very bottom (after the close of the bug) of

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=380272

someone suggests a fix for dl380.

jejb/ggg,

Does that look like the right fix?

-- 
Matt Taggart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#391384: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: Compaq Proliant DL380 fails to boot

[James Bottomley]

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 14:40 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> dann frazier writes...
> 
> > hey Grant/James,
> >   It looks like we're still having cpqarray/sym2 conflicts under
> > 2.6.18 - any idea what this problem may be?
> 
> This is for dl380. At the very bottom (after the close of the bug) of
> 
>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=380272
> 
> someone suggests a fix for dl380.
> 
> jejb/ggg,
> 
> Does that look like the right fix?

Er ... you mean the email that I sent pointing to a fix in the
scsi-rc-fixes tree?  Then yes, I think it's a correct fix.  It's already
in 2.6.18

James




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Processed: rm old 2.4 linux

[maximilian attems]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> Hi (again),
> 
> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:34 -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> [...]
> > > clone 387331  -2
> > Bug#387331: Uninstallable due to unmet dep on kernel-image-2.4.27-3-686-smp
> > Bug 387331 cloned as bug 391706.
> [...]
> > retitle -2 RM: kernel-image-2.4-686-smp -- RoM etch 2.6 only
> 
> I realise this particular binary package is mentioned due to a specific
> problem with it, but what about the rest of kernel-latest-2.4-i386?
> Don't they also need removing, for the same reasons as
> kernel-{image,source}2.4.*?

yes
 
> Regards,
> 
> Adam

thanks for your attention.

best regards
-- 
maks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

linux-2.6 - pending changes

[Bastian Blank]

Hi folks

Pending changes:
- xen images:
  Remove 4gb fixup message again, it doses the machines.

Bastian

-- 
No one may kill a man.  Not for any purpose.  It cannot be condoned.
-- Kirk, "Spock's Brain", stardate 5431.6


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#390695: linux-image-2.6.18-1-686: weird messages upon loading the CD-ROM driver[1~

[Oleg Verych]

On 2006-10-06, Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05.10.06 Oleg Verych ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:49:58AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > Are the ready made Debian packages or do I have to build myself?
>> 
>> I will, but it will be my first one (in the .deb). And i don't know
>> how it will run, because i must cross compile on x86-64. Anyway,
>> lets see what will happen ;)
>> 
> I tried to build an 19-rc1 kernel today. As I used the Debian default
> config and the box is not that fast it took a few hours. Then I
> forgot to create the initrd... :-( Will try again on Monday using
> kernel-package.

Maybe it will be better if i'll (cross) compile some modules from
backported sources for you and you will backup yours, and copy that in
/lib/modules/$LINUX_VERSION?

Also it's better to organize `/etc/initramfs-tools/modules' from your's
current lsmod and testing `initramfs.conf' with `MODULES=list', thus you
will have working-testing initrd, and boot option "break=init" (or mount,
see initramfs-tools(8)) will bring shell to you and you can scroll
boot messages or dmesg | more.

> The box has rather experimental status. Hmm, I should rather make a
> backup of /home before booting into rc1...

no need, if `break' boot option used. And all we need is just driver
loading, no files system or other things.

> H.




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Processed: rm old 2.4 linux

[Adam D. Barratt]

Hi (again),

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:34 -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
[...]
> > clone 387331  -2
> Bug#387331: Uninstallable due to unmet dep on kernel-image-2.4.27-3-686-smp
> Bug 387331 cloned as bug 391706.
[...]
> retitle -2 RM: kernel-image-2.4-686-smp -- RoM etch 2.6 only

I realise this particular binary package is mentioned due to a specific
problem with it, but what about the rest of kernel-latest-2.4-i386?
Don't they also need removing, for the same reasons as
kernel-{image,source}2.4.*?

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

[Oleg Verych]

On 2006-10-08, John Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:57:46 + (UTC), Oleg Verych
>>And this is possible without any *firmware* in debian/main and
>>installation process.
>
> Many things are possible for those doing the work.  Are you doing the
> work?

Maybe, yes. There was one message here, but nobody cared.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archived-At: 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Processed: rm old 2.4 linux

[Adam D. Barratt]

# See comments in body
tags 391709 = confirmed
merge 391709 379332
close 391710
close 391711
thanks

Hi,

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:34 -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
> > clone 389269 -5
> Bug#389269: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k: Shouldn't ship with Etch: 2.2 patch, 
> not a release arch
> Bug 389269 cloned as bug 391709.

This is #379332; merging.

[...]
> > retitle -6 RM:  kernel-patch-2.4-bluez  -- RoM etch 2.6 only
[...]
> > retitel -7 RM: kernel-source-2.2.25 -- RoM etch 2.6 only

These have both been removed already a week ago - kernel-patch-bluez as
#386810 and kernel-source-2.2.25 as #383706

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

[John Kelly]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:57:46 + (UTC), Oleg Verych
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> As for me, I want to make progress, to etch and a 2.6.18 kernel.  The
>> debian kernel maintainers have a practical solution, and I agree with
>> them.

>[sounds ubuntu-like, but no flamewars, please]

Inflammatory remarks like yours, start flamewars.


>And this is possible without any *firmware* in debian/main and
>installation process.

Many things are possible for those doing the work.  Are you doing the
work?

Bug#390541: linux-image-2.6.17-2-686: 2.6.17 fails to detect PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-K15, works fine with 2.6.16

[Georg Wittenburg]

Hi Oleg

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

On Thursday 05 October 2006 06:55, you wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:30:13PM +0200, Georg Wittenburg wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 October 2006 16:24, you wrote:
> > > On 2006-10-02, Georg Wittenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [.]
>
> > > Please don't be so selfish ;), attach full bootlog (dmesg + mount
> > > output). Here i see hdb, that means device node for your drive set up.
> > > What's problem, is not clear.
>
> [.]
>
> > No problem. ;) Please find attached to complete dmesg output of 2.6.16,
> > 2.6.17 and 2.6.18. 2.6.16 works as expected, 2.6.17 and 2.6.18 fail to
> > detect the DVD drive.
>
> OK, but before will go further with this, can you give 2.6.19-rc1 a try ?
> 2.6.18 had very long cycle, maybe that was fixed already.

I tried 2.6.19-rc1 with Debian's /boot/config-2.6.18-1-686 and default values 
for all new options. Unfortunately, even 2.6.19-rc1 fails to detect the DVD 
drive. I'm attaching the dmesg output to this mail.


> > Linux version 2.6.17-2-686 (Debian 2.6.17-9) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc
> > version 4.1.2 20060901 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-13)) #1 SMP Wed Sep 13
> > 16:34:10 UTC 2006
>
> [.]
>
> > ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x1008
> > ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee0
>
> ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x00] lapic_id[0x00] *enabled*)
>
> > Processor #0 6:13 APIC version 20
>
> ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x01] *disabled*)
>
> > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x00] high edge lint[0x1])
>
> BTW, do you have a Core Duo ? If yes, do they both run ?

No, this is a plain Pentium M.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor   : 0
vendor_id   : GenuineIntel
cpu family  : 6
model   : 13
model name  : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz
stepping: 8
cpu MHz : 800.000
cache size  : 2048 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug: no
coma_bug: no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp  : yes
flags   : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca 
cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe nx est tm2
bogomips: 1599.97


> > ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee0
>
> ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x00] lapic_id[0x00] *enabled*)
>
> > Processor #0 6:13 APIC version 20
>
> ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x01] *disabled*)
>
> > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x00] high edge lint[0x1])
> > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] high edge lint[0x1])


I'm unsure whether this helps, but I've observed for all of 2.6.17, 2.6.18, 
and 2.6.19-rc1 that there is a delay lasting several seconds during boot 
after the line "hda: TOSHIBA MK1031GAS, ATA DISK drive". This delay doesn't 
happen when booting 2.6.16. Maybe a timeout during the detecting of hdb?

Again, thanks for looking into this,

   Georg

-- 
Georg Wittenburg
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~wittenbu/
Linux version 2.6.19-rc1 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20060901 
(prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-13)) #1 SMP Sun Oct 8 16:19:23 CEST 2006
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
 BIOS-e820:  - 0009f800 (usable)
 BIOS-e820: 0009f800 - 000a (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 000dc000 - 0010 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 0010 - 3fee (usable)
 BIOS-e820: 3fee - 3feea000 (ACPI data)
 BIOS-e820: 3feea000 - 3ff0 (ACPI NVS)
 BIOS-e820: 3ff0 - 4000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: e000 - f0006000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: f0008000 - f000c000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: fed2 - fed9 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: ff00 - 0001 (reserved)
126MB HIGHMEM available.
896MB LOWMEM available.
Entering add_active_range(0, 0, 261856) 0 entries of 256 used
Zone PFN ranges:
  DMA 0 -> 4096
  Normal   4096 ->   229376
  HighMem229376 ->   261856
early_node_map[1] active PFN ranges
0:0 ->   261856
On node 0 totalpages: 261856
  DMA zone: 32 pages used for memmap
  DMA zone: 0 pages reserved
  DMA zone: 4064 pages, LIFO batch:0
  Normal zone: 1760 pages used for memmap
  Normal zone: 223520 pages, LIFO batch:31
  HighMem zone: 253 pages used for memmap
  HighMem zone: 32227 pages, LIFO batch:7
DMI present.
ACPI: RSDP (v000 PTLTD ) @ 0x000f7520
ACPI: RSDT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x) @ 0x3fee5890
ACPI: MADT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x005f) @ 0x3fee9e78
ACPI: FADT (v002   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x005f) @ 0x3fee9ee0
ACPI: BOOT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x0001) @ 0x3fee9fd8
ACPI: MCFG (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x005f) @ 0x3fee9f9c
ACPI: SSDT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x20030224) @ 0x3fee614d
ACPI: SSDT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x20030224) @ 0x3fee5d08
ACPI: SSDT (v001   Sony   J1 0x20060605 PTL  0x20030224) @ 0x3fee5aed
ACPI: SSDT (v001   Sony  

Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

[Oleg Verych]

On 2006-10-08, John Kelly wrote:
> On 2006-10-07, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
>> binary-firmware must be removed, or 15+ years of Debian are wasted
>
> If you want to re-live the past 15 years, take your own advice:
>
>> let them have own built kernel
>
> and do it yourself.

Hm. I have no problems doing this, really.
What i wrote was about DFSG (i.e main archive) and installation.

> As for me, I want to make progress, to etch and a 2.6.18 kernel.  The
> debian kernel maintainers have a practical solution, and I agree with
> them.
[sounds ubuntu-like, but no flamewars, please]

And this is possible without any *firmware* in debian/main and
installation process.

I will support .18 in etch as much as i can. BTW, even .18 isn't enough
for modern (0-1 year) office PCs, and there are doubts about backporting
stuff from new upsteam. For example i have such PC, which require some
new bytes from new r8169.c. Will kernel team backport that? I doubt it.

Anyways, more frequent releases aren't much for old-good servers, IMHO.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

[John Kelly]

On 2006-10-07, Oleg Verych wrote:

> binary-firmware must be removed, or 15+ years of Debian are wasted

If you want to re-live the past 15 years, take your own advice:

> let them have own built kernel

and do it yourself.


As for me, I want to make progress, to etch and a 2.6.18 kernel.  The
debian kernel maintainers have a practical solution, and I agree with
them.

Processed: rm old 2.4 linux

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> clone 385273 -1
Bug#385273: kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug 385273 cloned as bug 391705.

> reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391705: kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -1 RM: kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391705: kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Changed Bug title.

> severity -1 normal
Bug#391705: RM: kernel-headers-2.4.27-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

> clone 387331  -2
Bug#387331: Uninstallable due to unmet dep on kernel-image-2.4.27-3-686-smp
Bug 387331 cloned as bug 391706.

> reassign -2 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391706: Uninstallable due to unmet dep on kernel-image-2.4.27-3-686-smp
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-image-2.4-686-smp' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -2 RM: kernel-image-2.4-686-smp -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391706: Uninstallable due to unmet dep on kernel-image-2.4.27-3-686-smp
Changed Bug title.

> severity -2 normal
Bug#391706: RM: kernel-image-2.4-686-smp -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

> clone 385277 -3
Bug#385277: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug 385277 cloned as bug 391707.

> reassign -3 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391707: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-image-2.4.27-i386' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -3 RM: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386 -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391707: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Changed Bug title.

> severity -3 normal
Bug#391707: RM: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386 -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

> clone 385277 -4
Bug#385277: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug 385277 cloned as bug 391708.

> reassign -4 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391708: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-image-2.4.27-i386' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -4 RM: kernel-image-2.4.27-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391708: kernel-image-2.4.27-i386: obsolete kernel, dummy bug
Changed Bug title.

> severity -4 normal
Bug#391708: RM: kernel-image-2.4.27-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

> clone 389269 -5
Bug#389269: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k: Shouldn't ship with Etch: 2.2 patch, not 
a release arch
Bug 389269 cloned as bug 391709.

> reassign -5 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391709: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k: Shouldn't ship with Etch: 2.2 patch, not 
a release arch
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -5 RM: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391709: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k: Shouldn't ship with Etch: 2.2 patch, not 
a release arch
Changed Bug title.

> severity -5 normal
Bug#391709: RM: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `grave'

> clone 386478 -6
Bug#386478: Obsolete package: Etch will have only 2.6 kernels, 2.6 version out 
of date
Bug 386478 cloned as bug 391710.

> reassign -6 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391710: Obsolete package: Etch will have only 2.6 kernels, 2.6 version out 
of date
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-patch-2.4-bluez' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -6 RM:  kernel-patch-2.4-bluez  -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391710: Obsolete package: Etch will have only 2.6 kernels, 2.6 version out 
of date
Changed Bug title.

> severity -6 normal
Bug#391710: RM:  kernel-patch-2.4-bluez  -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `grave'

> clone 354203 -7
Bug#354203: RM: kernel-source-2.2.25 -- RoM; obsolete
Bug 354203 cloned as bug 391711.

> reassign -7 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391711: RM: kernel-source-2.2.25 -- RoM; obsolete
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-source-2.2.25' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitel -7 RM: kernel-source-2.2.25 -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> severity -7 normal
Bug#391711: RM: kernel-source-2.2.25 -- RoM; obsolete
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

> clone 350098 -8
Bug#350098: kernel-source-2.4.27: FTBFS with current kernel-package: config 
fails
Bug 350098 cloned as bug 391712.

> reassign -8 ftp.debian.org
Bug#391712: kernel-source-2.4.27: FTBFS with current kernel-package: config 
fails
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-source-2.4.27' to `ftp.debian.org'.

> retitle -8 RM: kernel-source-2.4.27 -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Bug#391712: kernel-source-2.4.27: FTBFS with current kernel-package: config 
fails
Changed Bug title.

> severity -8 normal
Bug#391712: RM: kernel-source-2.4.27 -- RoM etch 2.6 only
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#391619: marked as done (p{re,ost}insts' comments contradict each other.)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:16:41 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#391619: p{re,ost}insts' comments contradict each other.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.80
Severity: minor

  Does  [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -n "$2" ] refers to an upgrade
or to a First time install?

  postinst cliams that:

 # Regenerate initramfs on upgrade
if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -n "$2" ]; then

  while in preinst,

case "$1" in
configure)
if [ -n "$2" ]; then
mkdir -p /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d

# First time install.  Can we autodetect the RESUME partition?



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
>   Does  [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -n "$2" ] refers to an upgrade
> or to a First time install?
> 
>   postinst cliams that:
> 
>  # Regenerate initramfs on upgrade
> if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -n "$2" ]; then
> 
>   while in preinst,
> 
> case "$1" in
> configure)
> if [ -n "$2" ]; then
> mkdir -p /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d
> 
> # First time install.  Can we autodetect the RESUME partition?

you seem not very fluent in debian Maintainerscripts.

before filling out useless bugs either ask on the d-kernel mailinglist
or do a little google research yourself, which would point you §6.5
of the debian policy or to the excellent graphics by marga
-> http://women.debian.org/wiki/English/MaintainerScripts

anyway don't bug report to get support.


-- 
maks
--- End Message ---