Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
On Tue, 08 May 2007 16:43:13 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote: Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters of VMWare Workstation 6, which hasn't been released yet no less considered *stable*. Once I tried WS6, the same fault showed up after going back to 5.5. However, there is a fix on the VMware forums and apparently the next WS6 RC won't have this problem. -- Neil Bothwick A pessimist complains about the noise when opportunity knocks. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, 2.6.21 was released today. Testing muchly appreciated as usual -- please file bugs and clearly mark them as 2.6.21 regressions if that is the case. hello, 2.6.21 will break the current *stable* VMware worstation. VMware 6 will work again. please see the following thread on LKML: http://marc.info/?t=11779983523r=1w=2 I didn´t file this on bugzilla, because its an upsteam thing anyway. I still think its a good idea to upgrade to 2.6.21 -- just put a note on GWN or something. cheers, f -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 01:11 +0200, Florian D. wrote: Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, 2.6.21 was released today. Testing muchly appreciated as usual -- please file bugs and clearly mark them as 2.6.21 regressions if that is the case. hello, 2.6.21 will break the current *stable* VMware worstation. VMware 6 will work again. please see the following thread on LKML: http://marc.info/?t=11779983523r=1w=2 I didn´t file this on bugzilla, because its an upsteam thing anyway. I still think its a good idea to upgrade to 2.6.21 -- just put a note on GWN or something. cheers, f UmmmI use VMWare Workstation every single day for wonk on my laptop, I'm running 5.5.3.34685 and 2.6.21.1 without any issues what so ever... --Dan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya, Reading over the discussion on lkml, it appears that it only affects x86_64 systems... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQQlpu7rWomwgFXoRAhzPAJ94Dcg/S0a6dtHodXRyPRgRT4CS0gCdHSW2 kszd0QRaPlWLg8zhoTZlc/I= =2/I+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 00:36 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya, Reading over the discussion on lkml, it appears that it only affects x86_64 systems... Mike 5:) Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters of VMWare Workstation 6, which hasn't been released yet no less considered *stable*. --Dan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Ostrow wrote: Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters of VMWare Workstation 6, which hasn't been released yet no less considered *stable*. --Dan ok, then it only affects *some* amd64 users, but app-emulation/vmware-workstation-5.5.3.34685 seems to be affected -- I can reproduce the crash here (by e.g. starting a windows update *ahem*). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind. Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Petteri Räty wrote: Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody objected timeframe-wise before. Also, as noted in my mail I anticipate this taking more than a week from the point where we ask arch teams to consider stabling. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: Petteri Räty wrote: Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody objected timeframe-wise before. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate. I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded my original mail a little better. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Petteri Räty wrote: Daniel Drake kirjoitti: Petteri Räty wrote: Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody objected timeframe-wise before. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate. I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded my original mail a little better. 'is expected'. Portage is also a critical package and I doubt it's ever spent 30 days in ~arch. As always, maintainer knows best (and you can obviously blame dsd if all hell breaks loose :)) -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Hi, 2.6.21 was released today. Testing muchly appreciated as usual -- please file bugs and clearly mark them as 2.6.21 regressions if that is the case. There will probably be several packages unable to compile/load due to internal kernel API changes, as usual. Please make these block bug #176188 and please do treat these bugs with relatively high priority. I'm hoping that we'll be able to return to our usual release cycle of pushing to get 2.6.21 marked stable in 3 weeks time, plus a week for ironing out the final few issues. This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind. Thanks, Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
