Another thing I should mention is that I accidentally (I swear) ended up
in memtest86 during some kernel switching tests, and figured I would let
that run. It found about a dozen errors in 10-20 minutes testing, so
there's also that: it could be a problem with the RAM.
That said, those are new
On 2021-05-03 20:44:31, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2021-05-03 20:27:26, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Interestingly, it seems that the machine indeed doesn't go to sleep: it
>> loops over a failure to sleep and fills up syslog with errors as long as
>>
On 2021-05-03 20:27:26, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
> Interestingly, it seems that the machine indeed doesn't go to sleep: it
> loops over a failure to sleep and fills up syslog with errors as long as
> it's trying to sleep, pretty catastrophic, from a battery usage
> perspective.
On 2021-05-03 07:37:42, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Control: found -1 5.10.24-1
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 08:22:07PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2021-05-01 07:59:01, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> > Hi Antoine
>> >
>> > O
On 2021-05-03 07:37:42, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Control: found -1 5.10.24-1
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 08:22:07PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2021-05-01 07:59:01, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> > Hi Antoine
>> >
>> > O
On 2021-05-01 07:59:01, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Antoine
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 07:34:04PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2021-04-30 21:04:29, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>> >
>> > Hi Tollef, Antoine,
&g
On 2021-04-30 21:04:29, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> Hi Tollef, Antoine,
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:20:22PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> Control: forcemerge 922666 928189
>> Control: severity 922666 important
>> Contr
On 2020-10-22 22:55:33, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 03:09:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > I don't think we should keep patching in
>> > kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone forever, so the
Control: forcemerge 922666 928189
Control: severity 922666 important
Control: tags 922666 +patch +confirmed
I also see a regression with touchpads and trackpoint on a Thinkpad E431
after upgrading from Debian stretch to buster. My research indicates
this is a kernel regression, as yet to be
On 2019-01-29 21:32:24, Gabriel Filion wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On 2019-01-29 9:26 p.m., Antoine Beaupre wrote:
>> We'd need an easier way to reproduce this however. Has anyone worked on
>> getting some virtual machine images up to try and orchestrate a
>> reproducer for this? That would be ideal
On 2018-02-03 10:54:18, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 09:25:31PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> > There are, however, people *not* running Debian-built kernels, and
>> > sometimes for good reasons. This
On 2018-02-02 21:25:31, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> There are, however, people *not* running Debian-built kernels, and
>> sometimes for good reasons. This is a configuration that we should
>> still support.
>
> Is it supported, but it's also cle
Control: retitle 889098 enforce fs.protected_hardlinks in sysctl.d by default
Package: procps
Version: 2:3.3.12-3
Severity: normal
Tags: security
Following the disclosure of CVE-2017-18078, there was an elaborate
discussion on the #debian-devel and #debian-security IRC channels
regarding the
Also, it seems impossible to rebuild the backport from source:
[1060]anarcat@angela:dist$ sudo DIST=jessie ARCH=amd64 cowbuilder --build
linux_4.5.4-1~bpo8+1.dsc
-> Copying COW directory
forking: rm -rf /var/cache/pbuilder/build//cow.9542
forking: cp -al
Control: found -1 4.5.4-1~bpo8+1
Hi,
I still see this problem in debian jessie right now. I can't install the
linux kernel backport.
cp: impossible d'évaluer « /boot/initrd.img-4.5.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 »: Aucun
fichier ou dossier de ce type
The initrd is simply not in the .deb:
Package: linux-image-4.3.0-0.bpo.1-amd64
Version: 4.3.3-7~bpo8+1
Severity: normal
This version of the backport seems to fail to install properly:
$ sudo apt install -t jessie-backports linux-image-4.3.0-0.bpo.1-amd64
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state
On 2015-02-28 18:08:50, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Control: severity -1 normal
> Control: notfixed -1 0.36+wheezy.1
>
> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:25 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> Control: severity -1 grave
>> Control: fixed -1 0.36+wheezy.1
>>
>> I am now pre
Control: severity -1 grave
Control: fixed -1 0.36+wheezy.1
I am now pretty sure this is a bug, a regression, even, in the realtek
firmware. I downgraded to the wheezy version 4 days ago, and problems
went away (hence the fixed above). Now that I upgraded again, problems
are back.
Since this is a
Package: firmware-realtek
Version: 0.43
Severity: normal
I started seeing this behavior after the upgrade from wheezy to jessie.
I am not sure it's directly related to the firmware, because I upgraded
it shortly before the upgrade. This is the history of upgrades, in
reverse order:
On 2014-11-20 13:23:03, Fran Rodríguez wrote:
Hi,
How about this?¿ is it solved?¿
Not that I know of.
A.
--
They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change
them yourself. - Andy Warhol
pgpy9HDsXsGrf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Control: tag -1 -moreinfo
Control: fixed -1 3.16.5-1
On 2014-10-13 21:28:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The latter seems to say that this is fixed in 3.16.4. This may be the fix:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/18/712
[...]
So please test version 3.16.5-1 from unstable.
Ah. I missed that release
Package: src:linux
Version: 3.16.3-2
Severity: important
For a few weeks, I haven't been able to play any videos in jessie.
This happened during one of the latest upgrades, although it's hard for
me to pinpoint exactly when. I also doubt it's directly connected to a
xorg upgrade, since there was
Forgot to mention that things seem to work in XBMC, and using -vo x11 in
mplayer works around the issue, probably for similar reasons.
A.
--
L'art n'est pas un bureau d'anthropométrie.
- Léo Ferré, Préface
pgpoTMxg7LkFH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
drives, and
so is the server I previously mentionned in my report (ceres).
A.
--
Antoine Beaupré +++ Réseau Koumbit Networks +++ +1.514.387.6262 #208
pgpSTI_3RnqsS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
We have two machines that are identical here. I had the bug reproduced
fairly reliably on both machines regularly, last week it happened
exactly at the same time.
I installed the squeeze4~ijc0 kernel on one of them this weekend, and
today only the one without the kernel failed.
In other words,
On 2012-10-01, Mauro wrote:
The shift time happens also in dom0 not only in domUs.
That is correct.
--
Le pouvoir n'est pas à conquérir, il est à détruire
- Jean-François Brient, de la servitude moderne
pgpfZEzl94epH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:08:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
Can you create an ad-hoc interface like this:
iw dev wlan0 interface add wlan1 type adhoc
(you'll need the iw package).
Interesting - this works. Didn't know of the iw tool. But this creates a
separate
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:24:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
I looked a little further and saw that nl80211 does support changing
interface type (mode). But this driver (rtl8192ce) only supports
creating new interfaces, not changing their type.
Should mac80211 drivers
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:25:17 +0100, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
but the
iw interface changes the mode for an existing interface when using
rtl8192ce.
BTW, I added a new iface because I did not want to interrupt my
internat connection.
Hmm. Maybe the
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.39-3~bpo60+1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Hi,
The documentation for the rtl8192ce driver explicitely mentions that
it supports ad-hoc mode, yet, on the rtl8188CE card I have here (which
is advertised as supported both by the upstream driver and the driver
in
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:47:18 -0500, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Because it's been so long, I also should ask:
- can you still reproduce this with recent sid and squeeze kernels?
No, as the hardware is offline.
- any ideas, weird symptoms, or workarounds discovered since
31 matches
Mail list logo
