Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
Package: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 Version: 1.14 Severity: important As said, please add an apus flavour also, in order to be able to get ride of the 2.4.27 apus flavour in d-i, which i am not sure is working anymore, given the state of 2.4.27 in etch/sid. Friendly, Sven Luther -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-powerpc Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:51:18AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Package: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 Version: 1.14 Severity: important As said, please add an apus flavour also, in order to be able to get ride of the 2.4.27 apus flavour in d-i, which i am not sure is working anymore, given the state of 2.4.27 in etch/sid. I'd be happy to, but there's no linux-image-2.6.* package for apus yet. Looking at the kernel trunk in svn, perhaps apus needs to be added to flavours: in arch/powerpc/defines? Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:49:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: I'd be happy to, but there's no linux-image-2.6.* package for apus yet. Looking at the kernel trunk in svn, perhaps apus needs to be added to flavours: in arch/powerpc/defines? No. APUS is marked as broken upstream since a long time. Bastian -- Killing is stupid; useless! -- McCoy, A Private Little War, stardate 4211.8 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:58:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:49:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: I'd be happy to, but there's no linux-image-2.6.* package for apus yet. Looking at the kernel trunk in svn, perhaps apus needs to be added to flavours: in arch/powerpc/defines? No. APUS is marked as broken upstream since a long time. So what ? Why do you think we have had an apus patch in until 2.6.15. I need to look over the apus patch, and port it to 2.6.16, didn't have time to do this yet though, help is welcome. prep is also broken now anyway, and needs fixing. The 2.6.15-2.6.16 migration clearly did bring a lot of trouble and work. That said, only 2.6.15 is in testing for now, so i wonder the wisdom of building d-i images based on 2.6.16. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:04:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:58:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:49:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: I'd be happy to, but there's no linux-image-2.6.* package for apus yet. Looking at the kernel trunk in svn, perhaps apus needs to be added to flavours: in arch/powerpc/defines? No. APUS is marked as broken upstream since a long time. So what ? Why do you think we have had an apus patch in until 2.6.15. I need to look over the apus patch, and port it to 2.6.16, didn't have time to do this yet though, help is welcome. prep is also broken now anyway, and needs fixing. The 2.6.15-2.6.16 migration clearly did bring a lot of trouble and work. That said, only 2.6.15 is in testing for now, so i wonder the wisdom of building d-i images based on 2.6.16. The daily d-i builds are based on unstable, not testing; if we didn't do that it would be much more difficult to qualify installer packages in unstable for inclusion into testing. Essentially we'd just end up with a broken testing before we realised the problems. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#364996: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6: please add apus subarch, apus is currently kind-of using the non-working 2.4.27 stuff still
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:36:33AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:04:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:58:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:49:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: I'd be happy to, but there's no linux-image-2.6.* package for apus yet. Looking at the kernel trunk in svn, perhaps apus needs to be added to flavours: in arch/powerpc/defines? No. APUS is marked as broken upstream since a long time. So what ? Why do you think we have had an apus patch in until 2.6.15. I need to look over the apus patch, and port it to 2.6.16, didn't have time to do this yet though, help is welcome. prep is also broken now anyway, and needs fixing. The 2.6.15-2.6.16 migration clearly did bring a lot of trouble and work. That said, only 2.6.15 is in testing for now, so i wonder the wisdom of building d-i images based on 2.6.16. The daily d-i builds are based on unstable, not testing; if we didn't do that it would be much more difficult to qualify installer packages in unstable for inclusion into testing. Essentially we'd just end up with a broken testing before we realised the problems. This is indeed the case right now, i don't believe that it is not possible to come up with better suited solutions though. Our current d-i also builds apus images with 2.4 apus images, while there is no apus kernel in the archive that builds anymore i think. You could imagine a system where the d-i images where built out of a sid d-i package, and the .udebs it uses and needs be tied in some way to it in such a way that they could only move into testing all together, and do what we currently do in unstable in experimental or something. Nobody has thought about those lines though, and any hint of it is heavily discouraged. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
