kernel-source-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kernel-source-2.6.10_2.6.10-3.dsc
kernel-source-2.6.10_2.6.10-3.diff.gz
kernel-patch-debian-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
kernel-source-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
Your message dated Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:17:37 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#288062: fixed in kernel-source-2.6.10 2.6.10-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Accepted:
kernel-doc-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.10/kernel-doc-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
kernel-patch-debian-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.10/kernel-patch-debian-2.6.10_2.6.10-3_all.deb
kernel-source-2.6.10_2.6.10-3.diff.gz
to
Alright, I've uploaded 2.6.10 source and i386 packages. They can be
obtained here:
http://www.acm.rpi.edu/~dilinger/kernel-source-2.6.10/
http://www.acm.rpi.edu/~dilinger/kernel-image-2.6.10-i386/
Looks like I *just* missed some NEW processing, too. Oh well..
kernel-image-2.6.10-i386_2.6.10-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
kernel-image-2.6.10-i386_2.6.10-3.dsc
kernel-image-2.6.10-i386_2.6.10-3.tar.gz
kernel-headers-2.6.10-1_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-686-smp_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
(new) kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-386_2.6.10-3_i386.deb optional devel
Linux kernel headers 2.6.10 on 386
This package provides kernel header files for version 2.6.10 on 386,
for sites that want the latest kernel headers.
Please read /usr/share/doc/kernel-headers-2.6.10-1/debian.README.gz for
Check here if your message above does not load.
No man or woman who tries to pursue an ideal in his or her own way is without enemies. -Daisy Bates (1863-1951) Ahir
Does Joe hate laughing over there? aventurine
About life breadman
Those janitors aren't missing sleeping right now. Baluga
kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8_2.6.8-9_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8_2.6.8-9.dsc
kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8_2.6.8-9.tar.gz
kernel-headers-2.6.8_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
kernel-image-2.6.8-power3_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
Your message dated Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:02:24 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#287933: fixed in kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8 2.6.8-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Accepted:
kernel-build-2.6.8-power3-smp_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8/kernel-build-2.6.8-power3-smp_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
kernel-build-2.6.8-power3_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.8/kernel-build-2.6.8-power3_2.6.8-9_powerpc.deb
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Best thing for 2TB disks is to use LVM anyway
At least as far as d-i is concerned (AFAICT), you have to put LVM on top
of an existing partition table; you can't just use the full /dev/sda or
whatever. (The command-line lets you get around this).
However, even if you do
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:49:54AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Best thing for 2TB disks is to use LVM anyway
At least as far as d-i is concerned (AFAICT), you have to put LVM on top
of an existing partition table; you can't just use the full /dev/sda or
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:53:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
At least as far as d-i is concerned (AFAICT), you have to put LVM on top
of an existing partition table; you can't just use the full /dev/sda or
whatever. (The command-line lets you get around this).
Yikes. The a stupid
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:53:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
At least as far as d-i is concerned (AFAICT), you have to put LVM on top
of an existing partition table; you can't just use the full /dev/sda or
whatever.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:37:41 +0100, Juan Cespedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:03:15AM -0800, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Being able to inspect the kernel variables and the kernel content
with:
gdb /boot/vmlinux /proc/kcore
I disagree. People who want the bare vmlinux
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:13:06 +0100, Juan Cespedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:37:41PM +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:03:15AM -0800, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I disagree. People who want the bare vmlinux can use the
configuration option
Hi,
A few months ago, I asked on this list for more informative
description of patches enabling non-kernel hackers to choose
individual patchsets for their local kernels. Unfortunately, that
question was denied pretty fast. Looks like you guys don't have time
to write more extensive docs.
Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
A few months ago, I asked on this list for more informative
description of patches enabling non-kernel hackers to choose
individual patchsets for their local kernels. Unfortunately, that
question was denied pretty fast. Looks like you guys don't have time
to write
I am also seeing this on pinhead, an IBM Thinkpad T20, when trying
to upgrade to kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (version 2.6.8-11). I'm using
encrypted swap with the cryptsetup package.
The kernel package installation attempt looks like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dkg]$ sudo apt-get install
+ static int __init init_ext3_fs(void)
+ {
+ int err = init_ext3_xattr();
++
++/* fix for oops */
++printk(KERN_ERR [%d] init_ext3_fs(), err = %d\n, __LINE__, err);
urgg, this is not a fix but a hack. Should look more like:
/* ugly hack to work around compiler bug
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I think the effort to do so is better invested elsewhere. As a
general rule, the kernel team strives to keep the debian-specific
patches to a minimum. For people without in-depth kernel knowledge
it's probably best to take the full
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I think the effort to do so is better invested elsewhere. As a
general rule, the kernel team strives to keep the debian-specific
patches to a minimum. For people without in-depth kernel knowledge
it's probably best to take the full
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:25:33PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Agreed. The package is not a repository for cherrypicking patches
but intended to used as a whole thing.
I am pretty disappointed about that attitude towards your users. What
exactly is the problem with a little more docs to
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:33:51PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Actually, the kernel of my dreams is more near to the vanilla
kernel.org kernel, so I'd like to be able to throw out patches that
you need to apply because of your _much_ broader user base.
otoh, I would like to run a 2.6.10 kernel
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:36:47PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:33:51PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Actually, the kernel of my dreams is more near to the vanilla
kernel.org kernel, so I'd like to be able to throw out patches that
you need to apply because of your
Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I think the effort to do so is better invested elsewhere. As a
general rule, the kernel team strives to keep the debian-specific
patches to a minimum. For people without in-depth kernel knowledge
it's
Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:25:33PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Agreed. The package is not a repository for cherrypicking patches
but intended to used as a whole thing.
I am pretty disappointed about that attitude towards your users. What
exactly is the problem with a
Rejected: Rejected: kernel-image-power3-smp_2.6.9-2_powerpc.deb: old version
(100) in unstable = new version (2.6.9-2) targeted at unstable.
Rejected: Rejected: kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.9_2.6.9-2_all.deb: old version
(2.6.9-3) in unstable = new version (2.6.9-2) targeted at unstable.
Rejected:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:52:59PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Cherrypicking makes little sense, because there are only cherries. :-)
For my systems, I care about security holes being fixed, but I do not
care about some obscure video hardware, or additional features. So
Cherry is relative.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:41:41 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:25:33PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Agreed. The package is not a repository for cherrypicking patches
but intended to used as a whole thing.
I am pretty disappointed about that attitude towards your users.
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:56:48PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:41:41 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:25:33PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Agreed. The package is not a repository for cherrypicking patches
but intended to used as a whole thing.
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+ static int __init init_ext3_fs(void)
+ {
+ int err = init_ext3_xattr();
++
++ /* fix for oops */
++ printk(KERN_ERR [%d] init_ext3_fs(), err = %d\n, __LINE__, err);
urgg, this is not a fix but a hack. Should look more like:
/* ugly hack
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:01:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
A few months ago, I asked on this list for more informative
description of patches enabling non-kernel hackers to choose
individual patchsets for their local kernels. Unfortunately, that
question was denied pretty fast. Looks like
I'm seeing the same problem on my Toshiba Satellite Pro 4360.
Switching to the other kernel I have available (2.4.18) speeds it
back up.
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+- smbfs-overflow-fixes.dpatch
++ smbfs-overflow-fixes-2.dpatch
The new patch doesn't apply:
-- 2.6.10-3 fully applied.
smbfs-overflow-fixes.dpatch OK (-)
smbfs-overflow-fixes-2.dpatch OK (+)
1 out of 2 hunks
before compiling.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-20050109
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages kernel-source-2.6.10 depends on:
ii binutils
* Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+- smbfs-overflow-fixes.dpatch
++ smbfs-overflow-fixes-2.dpatch
The new patch doesn't apply:
-- 2.6.10-3 fully applied.
smbfs-overflow-fixes.dpatch OK (-)
smbfs-overflow-fixes-2.dpatch
Accepted:
kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-386_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.10-i386/kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-386_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-686-smp_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.10-i386/kernel-headers-2.6.10-1-686-smp_2.6.10-3_i386.deb
Horms wrote:
Debian isn't lowering priority on Linux 2.4 work but individual people
are.
I am one of the people who do work on 2.4 for debian,
I won't raise the hands of others.
Personally my focus is 2.4.27, because that is what will go
into sarge and right now I don't have the time to do
39 matches
Mail list logo
