On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 05:20:06PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> indeed the openvz upstream merge record is fun to watch :)
> IMHO the coding style of vserver is not up to upstream merge quality.
> even if compared to xen we are quite happy about its etch bug count.
I just took a look into the
Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:47:27 +0400
Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, IMHO the document
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines is not
> applicable to this case because it describes patches that are [not]
> welcome to "standard" Debian kernel, while OpenVZ, Lin
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:47:27PM +0400, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> As for mainstream integration, I can say OpenVZ is committed to merging
> "containers" functionality to mainstream. I have just checked the number
> of changesets submitted by OpenVZ and Linux-VServer guys, using
> up-to-date Linus
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:47:27PM +0400, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> As for mainstream integration, I can say OpenVZ is committed to merging
> "containers" functionality to mainstream. I have just checked the number
> of changesets submitted by OpenVZ and Linux-VServer guys, using
> up-to-date Linus
As for mainstream integration, I can say OpenVZ is committed to merging
"containers" functionality to mainstream. I have just checked the number
of changesets submitted by OpenVZ and Linux-VServer guys, using
up-to-date Linus' kernel git tree. For the last 365 days (i.e. a year)
there were 818
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Monday 28 April 2008 18:59, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > VServer looks currently dead.
> > That is a pity. Is it a problem upstream or with the maintainer?
>
> It's a gross simplification. vserver is not dead, they are lacking a bit
Hi Holger
Really good to know. I'm the (co-)maintainer of util-vserver so
I really want the vserver kernels to be maintained. :)
Best regards,
// Ola
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 28 April 2008 18:59, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > VServer looks
Hi,
On Monday 28 April 2008 18:59, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > VServer looks currently dead.
> That is a pity. Is it a problem upstream or with the maintainer?
It's a gross simplification. vserver is not dead, they are lacking a bit
behind the latest kernel release, which is the only thing some peo
Hi Bastian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:32:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:47:20PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Since we are talking about openvz and kernel, may I ask for a
> > > linux-image-2.6.x-openvz package like Debian already has for xen and
> > > vserve
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:47:20PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Since we are talking about openvz and kernel, may I ask for a
> > linux-image-2.6.x-openvz package like Debian already has for xen and
> > vserver?
VServer looks currently dead.
> However it do not match the Debian Acceptanc
Hi Christian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:17AM -0300, Christian Lyra wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>
> Since we are talking about openvz and kernel, may I ask for a
> linux-image-2.6.x-openvz package like Debian already has for xen and
> vserver?
You are perfectly welcome to do so. I have actua
11 matches
Mail list logo
