On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:52:56PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
The you say! Is this why I can't get X going under vanilla 2.6.28?
Any word on the ETA of the fixing of the breakage?
Well given the kernel isn't in unstable, it didn't seem like a problem
in need of a fix yet. Now
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:20:46AM -0700, m...@allums.com wrote:
Sorry, I tend to forget that it is a big deal to do that stuff.
It's not that bad really. Well except when the kernel interface changes
and breaks things and you have to track down patches and such.
It's just as well you
Original Message
Subject: Re: Where is the kernel?
From: Sridhar M.A. m...@mylug.org
Date: Tue, January 06, 2009 5:54 am
To: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:52:56PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
The you say! Is this why I can't get X
On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Robert Isaac wrote:
That would break all three nvidia drivers currently within non-free,
so it is not necessarily a good idea for the people that rely on those
for a desktop.
But it would certainly be a good argument to use in a letter to your elected
representative,
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:52:56PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
The you say! Is this why I can't get X going under vanilla 2.6.28?
Any word on the ETA of the fixing of the breakage?
Not sure about amd64, but there is a patch available for Nvidia 177.80
which makes it compile under x86
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:07:28PM -0500, Robert Isaac wrote:
That would break all three nvidia drivers currently within non-free,
so it is not necessarily a good idea for the people that rely on those
for a desktop.
Well true, that it would. I guess we would have to fix that if we did
go to
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:52:56PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
The you say! Is this why I can't get X going under vanilla 2.6.28?
Any word on the ETA of the fixing of the breakage?
Well given the kernel isn't in unstable, it didn't seem like a problem
in need of a fix yet. Now given I
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:06 AM, A J Stiles de...@earthshod.co.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Robert Isaac wrote:
That would break all three nvidia drivers currently within non-free,
so it is not necessarily a good idea for the people that rely on those
for a desktop.
But it would
That would break all three nvidia drivers currently within non-free,
I'm sorry, but that's not the case: Debian is *only* main, non-free is
a commodity place we provide for our users, it's not that something
broked in non-free would stop the release to happen.
That is good to say, but in
On 01/06/09 17:14, Robert Isaac wrote:
[snip]
Unfortunately, I can't afford to be without a 3D desktop so that is
not an option for me.
I'm sure you have a valid reason, but it does seem rather odd that
you can't live without what many consider as eye candy.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson
2009/1/5 A J Stiles de...@earthshod.co.uk:
On Monday 05 Jan 2009, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
Dear maintainers,
just some questions
What happened to the kernel higher than 2.6.26 ?
Is the kernel on hold, due toe the upcoming release of Lenny?
Meanwhile the latest stable kernel-version is
On 01/05/09 09:27, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
[snip] experimental [snip] and 2.6.28 is there now.
Yay! Thanks, Kernel Team.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
I like my women like I like my coffee - purchased at above-market
rates from eco-friendly organic farming cooperatives in Latin
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:16:14AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
It's not there, and won't be until after Lenny's release. Unless the
maintainers relent and put 2.6.27 into Experimental.
Well 2.6.27 was in the kernel experimental area for a while, and 2.6.28
is there now.
--
Len Sorensen
--
Hans-J. Ullrich:
Dear maintainers,
This list is for Debian users of AMD64. You cannot expect maintainers to
read it.
What happened to the kernel higher than 2.6.26 ?
Is the kernel on hold, due toe the upcoming release of Lenny?
Yes.
Meanwhile the latest stable kernel-version is 2.6.28
Ivan Marin writes:
The main problem, I suppose, is to get the debian kernel patches. Is
there a easy way to do a diff between the changes in the kernel.org
sources and the debian patched sources?
A Debian source package consists essentially of the pristine upstream
source plus a diff
2009/1/5 John Hasler jhas...@debian.org:
Ivan Marin writes:
The main problem, I suppose, is to get the debian kernel patches. Is
there a easy way to do a diff between the changes in the kernel.org
sources and the debian patched sources?
A Debian source package consists essentially of the
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 20:29, Ivan Marin ispma...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 John Hasler jhas...@debian.org:
Ivan Marin writes:
The main problem, I suppose, is to get the debian kernel patches. Is
there a easy way to do a diff between the changes in the kernel.org
sources and the debian
Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
Dear maintainers,
just some questions
What happened to the kernel higher than 2.6.26 ?
Is the kernel on hold, due toe the upcoming release of Lenny?
Meanwhile the latest stable kernel-version is 2.6.28 (and 2.6.29 is at work).
Where is 2.6.27 and 2.6.28 in debian? I
Ivan Marin writes:
I've been always curious about what are the changes that the Debian
kernel team does to the pristine kernel, if any, and the differences
between the pristine and the Debian .config.
Description: Linux kernel source for version 2.6.25 with Debian patches
This package
2009/1/5 John Hasler jhas...@debian.org:
Ivan Marin writes:
I've been always curious about what are the changes that the Debian
kernel team does to the pristine kernel, if any, and the differences
between the pristine and the Debian .config.
Description: Linux kernel source for version
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:16:14AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
It's not there, and won't be until after Lenny's release. Unless the
maintainers relent and put 2.6.27 into Experimental.
Well 2.6.27 was in the kernel experimental area for a while, and 2.6.28
is there now.
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:41:26AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Yes. Most users either aren't aware, forget about the existence of
it, or don't want to mess with kernel experimental. And most of the
time, they'd be right. The Lenny freeze is causing an exception to the
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:16:14AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
It's not there, and won't be until after Lenny's release. Unless the
maintainers relent and put 2.6.27 into Experimental.
Well 2.6.27 was in the kernel experimental area for a while, and 2.6.28
is there now.
--
Len Sorensen
Len,
on 01/06/09 06:58, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
apt-get -d install linux-image -t experimental
but it showed only all versions of 2.6.26
How can I download (but NOT install) the latest kernel from experimental?
According to Debian Wiki[1], you can get latest package from other repository.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:18PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Exactly. That's why 2.6.27 should be more mainstream. To reiterate the
thoughts of millions of right-thinking people, 2.6.27 should be the
official Lenny kernel. Or at least be packaged alongside 2.6.26 in
the final
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 10:58:40PM +0100, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
I tried
apt-get -d install linux-image -t experimental
but it showed only all versions of 2.6.26
How can I download (but NOT install) the latest kernel from experimental?
Not debian experimental. The kernel experimental
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:18PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Exactly. That's why 2.6.27 should be more mainstream. To reiterate the
thoughts of millions of right-thinking people, 2.6.27 should be the
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 02:07, Robert Isaac rjis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:18PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Exactly. That's why 2.6.27 should be more mainstream. To reiterate the
Robert Isaac wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:18PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Exactly. That's why 2.6.27 should be more mainstream. To reiterate the
thoughts of millions of right-thinking people, 2.6.27
On 01/05/09 19:52, Mark Allums wrote:
Robert Isaac wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:06:18PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Exactly. That's why 2.6.27 should be more mainstream. To reiterate
the
thoughts of
30 matches
Mail list logo
