Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe the installer kernel would have the release version on the
package name and then it wouldn't be remove from the suite until the
next version. e.g:
- linux-image-d-i-4.0-rc1
So you prefer ugly hacked solution over cleant and neat ones ?
It
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:05:24AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe the installer kernel would have the release version on the
package name and then it wouldn't be remove from the suite until the
next version. e.g:
- linux-image-d-i-4.0-rc1
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. You know we stopped doing this kind of stuff for the kernel package
over
a year ago, and probably for a reason, don't you think ?
We stopped doing that for kernel packages. The problem here is that,
without doing that the binaries will stay
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:27:10AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. You know we stopped doing this kind of stuff for the kernel
package over
a year ago, and probably for a reason, don't you think ?
We stopped doing that for kernel
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I like the idea while I keep in my mind that Joey had some reasons to
dislike the udeb building from kernel source. I don't remember which
He dislikes it, because he then will have less control over the .udeb content.
But the one archive-per-kernel-abi
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:37:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all
those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this
won't be true... that can be used if it stay just
Op 03-11-2006 om 03:03 schreef Frans Pop:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
team lives easier. One wouldn't affect the other with
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be one by
kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i images alive even when
new kernel versions are pushed
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be one
by
kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i images alive even
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:11:08PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be
one by
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all
those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this
won't be true... that can be used if it stay just as a sid resource...
Since the problem of moving versions only
On Friday 03 November 2006 08:29, Sven Luther wrote:
I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract
your attention. At least this is how i understood the issue.
No, it is not. I don't get some kind of automatic notification by email
for bugs tagged d-i.
Or don't you
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 08:29, Sven Luther wrote:
I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract
your attention. At least this is how i understood the issue.
No, it is not. I don't get some kind of
On Friday 03 November 2006 11:33, Sven Luther wrote:
Ah, i thought there was some automatic tool, or whatever, so much for
me, next time i will make sure to CC debian-boot or something, that
Please discuss it on the list _before_ you file a bug report.
said i was kill-filled by most of you
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:54:39AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 11:33, Sven Luther wrote:
Ah, i thought there was some automatic tool, or whatever, so much for
me, next time i will make sure to CC debian-boot or something, that
Please discuss it on the list _before_
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:34:53PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this.
Adding a
.udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded by
d-i,
can hardly have any influence on d-i.
Not exactly. When we're building the cdimage we
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:04:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this.
Adding a
.udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded
by d-i,
can hardly have
On Friday 03 November 2006 23:51, Sven Luther wrote:
Bah, i can commit to debian-cd, and now that i know about this fact, if
ever a .udeb i asked is out there, i will naturally add it to the
blacklist.
No, sorry that was not the intention. Having everybody committing
uncoordinated changes to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it's trivial but the team need to be aware of those
modifications otherwise it can take a while to discover useless udebs
that are being include on the image. Currently there's no automatic CD
testing tool to try to figure those mistakes out as fast
On Saturday 04 November 2006 01:24, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
team lives easier. One wouldn't
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 01:24, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:39:50AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 23:51, Sven Luther wrote:
Bah, i can commit to debian-cd, and now that i know about this fact, if
ever a .udeb i asked is out there, i will naturally add it to the
blacklist.
No, sorry that was not the
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:24:28PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Yeah, but adding them to the image is not always the best solution, loading
afterward may be a better way.
Also, there may be another future for .udebs out there than just for d-i
use,
altough i know the d-i folk doesn't
Eddy Petrișor wrote:
No, is not luck, just that all udebs which could be used are added to
the pool of binaries which need symbols, AFAICT:
No, the code you qouted is specific to building floppy disk images.
As I said before, once d-i has access to the installation media, it
loads the full
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:54:25PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Eddy Petrișor wrote:
No, is not luck, just that all udebs which could be used are added to
the pool of binaries which need symbols, AFAICT:
No, the code you qouted is specific to building floppy disk images.
As I said before,
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Daniel,
I am glad you took this to the debian-boot mailing list as Sven Luther,
who currently is not even a member of the Debian Installer team, filed
this request without discussing it on the debian-boot list first.
As such, this is an
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be
discussed on the debian-boot list first,
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:36:54AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
reduction, because
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
reduction, because they are not needed by the .udebs in the image, but they
are needed by
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
be very useful for developers. This would come in handy to debug various bugs
which are otherwise hard to track, like crashes in the graphical installer,
or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
My impression is that d-i loads the full libraries later on, or something
such.
AFAIK, this
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
My impression is that d-i loads the full libraries later on, or something
such.
AFAIK, this never happens. The reduction is done mainly for the thing
not to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:05:26AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
be very useful for
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:05:26AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
be very useful for developers. This would come in handy to debug various
bugs
which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
reduction, because
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
If they did that, you could just wget a full GDB binary. It doesn't
need anything else in the package besides the executable. But I don't
think d-i does what you describe (since I tried to use this approach
for strace recently, and there were missing symbols in
Hello Daniel,
I am glad you took this to the debian-boot mailing list as Sven Luther,
who currently is not even a member of the Debian Installer team, filed
this request without discussing it on the debian-boot list first.
As such, this is an unauthorized request.
On Tuesday 31 October 2006
41 matches
Mail list logo
