Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I think de4x5 should be a driver of last resort. Tulip should always
> be preferred to drive a given piece of hardware. I wouldn't shed any
> tears if we stopped shipping de4x5 by default -- it's caused no end of
> problems on parisc and ia64.
OTOH it's the only module th
I think it's best to defer any thought of switching d-i to a newer
kernel until after rc3. At the moment rc3 is nearly ready (except for
some missing kernel abiname updates), and I don't see any reason why we
cannot get it released within the month. Switching kernels is sure to
take longer than tha
Andres Salomon wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that if sarge is literally less than a month away from
> freezing, then let's stick w/ 2.6.8. It's Good Enough; if we can get
> around ACPI problems by disabling it, fine. However, if sarge is still
> far away from freezing, then there's no reason not to
Joey Hess wrote:
> Before we can release d-i rc3 we need all the kernels updated with at
> least some security fixes, notably the ones that change the kernel
> module ABI, and we need to update things to reflect the new kernel
> "abiname". Here's my understanding of
dann frazier wrote:
> Note that only x86 & ia64 have 2.6.10 in sid[1].
> alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpc, s390 & sparc have 2.6.8.
>
> I won't blame joeyh for laughing in our face (or spitting in it) if we
> can't commit to having these other archs in shape quickly. In fact; it
> seems kinda silly to
Horms wrote:
> By my calculations that is 3am on Saturday morning in Japan,
> I am not sure I will be in an appropriate state to be having meetings
> at that time.
It's noon here, I may be awake for the meeting, if so I will attend. No
promises however.
> My 2c worth here is that frankly 2.6 is h
dann frazier wrote:
> I pointed this out on IRC, but just to make sure it hits the list...
> Turning of PREEMPT will change the module ABI. ia64 also has PREEMPT
> turned on in 2.6.8 (following suit w/ x86), and I've left it on for this
> reason.
Guys, if you change the ABI on me again right now,
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> I uploaded new 2.6.8 kernel-images for m68k a week ago, but I did not make it
> urgent...: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old
> For 2.4.27 I am waiting for the latest kernel-source to be released before I
> build new images. This is supposed to happen today/tomorrow? I
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:59:00PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > initrd-tools 0.1.76 changed to abort on install to LVM if dmsetup was
> > not installed. I think this was a mistake. I'm ccing tbm, who made the
> > change.
>
> I made the ch
Joey Hess wrote:
> Before we can release d-i rc3 we need all the kernels updated with at
> least some security fixes, notably the ones that change the kernel
> module ABI, and we need to update things to reflect the new kernel
> "abiname". Here's my understanding of
severity 291362 serious
reassign 291362 initrd-tools
thanks
Lupe Christoph wrote:
> Kernel installation (2.4.27) failed because the initrd could not be
> generated. dmsetup is missing.
>
> Root is on a DM device, but dmsetup not installed
> Failed to create initrd image.
>
> Same happens with 2.
Jan Lühr wrote:
> things seem to be in a rush right now, and I'm looking for a little overview.
> In the past 1-2 months several kernel exploits rushed through the news that
> might / can / probably will affect debian stable. However, I haven't seen any
> signle DSA regarding the following issues:
Steve Langasek wrote:
> For 2.4, this requires i2c, kernel-latest-2.4-i386, linux-wlan-ng,
> lm-sensors, and oprofile-source to be ready to go at the same time with
> packages built against the new ABI. Of these, oprofile-source has had a
> recent upload, but has only out-of-date modules (none bui
Package: kernel-latest-2.4-i386
Severity: serious
kernel-latest needs to be updated to depend on
kernel-image-2.4.27-2-386, and so on. Until this is done, the new
packages cannot enter testing.
I'm making this bug report severity serious since kernel-latest is
keeping security fixes out of testin
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> Updated alpha packages were accepted a few hours ago.
Do you or maybe vorlon plan to rebuild linux-kernel-di-alpha with them?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Before we can release d-i rc3 we need all the kernels updated with at
least some security fixes, notably the ones that change the kernel
module ABI, and we need to update things to reflect the new kernel
"abiname". Here's my understanding of the current status of that:
i386
2.4 and 2.6 upd
Elrond wrote:
> Is this bug really pending?
>
> That is: Is it really fixed in svn?
>
> Or did it just inherit the pending due to the clone?
Both, it inherited the pending due to the clone and it's fixed in svn
for kernel-source-2.4.27 (2.4.27-8). Although they have the changelog
closing #289155
clone 289155 -1
reassign -1 kernel-source-2.4.27
thanks
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> I haven't found a patch for 2.6 yet, a patch for 2.4 is available in
> the 2.4 Bitkeeper branch.
Cloning a bug for 2.4 since it's also vulnerable.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess wrote:
> b. If the SONAME is increased and the ABI changes reverted for -1:
For some reason I based this on the mistaken assumption of -1 packages
staying in the archive after -2 entered it. Updated version for -1 going
away semi-immediatly:
- All rc2 images will keep work
Looking at how these proposed fixes would affect d-i and existing rc2
images:
a. If the SONAME is left unchanged and the new ABI remains, and things
are updated to use the new ABI:
- Installs from a rc2 netinst CD will keep working, but you'll get a
kernel with the old ABI. Installs o
Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha
Version: 2.4.27-4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha-2.4.27$ dpkg-checkbuilddeps
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: kernel-tree-2.4.27-6
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha-2.4.27$ su -c 'apt-get install
kernel-tree-2.4.27-6'
Pas
This bug is release critical. Please do not downgrade it. (But thanks for
reopening it.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I was trying to debug a bug that turned out to be the sysfs bang bug in
the initrd with the 2.6 kernel and I noticed that the reason it's
falling back to sysfs in the first place seems to be because the linuxrc
does not run (wasn't that removed from many kernels or not supported on
all arches anywa
Package: initrd-tools
Version: 0.1.74
Severity: normal
For some reason appending init=/bin/sh does not work with initrd-tools,
which proceeds to run the /sbin/init in the initrd.
However, if I boot with init=/bin2/sh, it works and I get a shell in the
initrd before it (fails to) mount my root fi
Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-1-386
Version: 2.4.27-6
Severity: grave
Tags: d-i
Loading a module from the -2 version of this package when the -6 version
of the kernel is running fails for at least all the ide chipset modules
and for the ide generic module, with many missing symbols:
~ # uname -a
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 12:18:01PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Discover says to use the acenic driver for these, but it does not seem
> > to be available in the 2.4 or 2.6 kernels for hppa or i386. I do see the
> > driver the the kernel source so plea
Package: kernel
Severity: normal
I have a hppa a500 with two pci nics in it:
:10:00.0 0200: 12ae:0001 (rev 01)
:10:00.0 Ethernet controller: Alteon Networks Inc. AceNIC Gigabit Ethernet
(rev 01)
:20:00.0 0200: 12ae:0001 (rev 01)
:20:00.0 Ethernet controller: Alteon Networks Inc.
Jim, I noticed your patch to prebaseconfig for this bug. I wonder if
closing the bug report there is really the right thing to do, since the
real bug seems to be in the kernel, doesn't it?
I can reproduce this on my ia64.
The comment says that "50prebaseconfig" (really it's 50register-module)
add
Steve Langasek wrote:
> The d-i images really need to be built from kernel-image packages that
> are in the archive at the time we ship. Optimizing for 486 isn't a very
> good reason on its own to force another kernel build cycle.
I had not even considered the impact of changing the optimisation,
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed
> to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't
> consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing onto a 386.
> Also, note that if we do drop 386 support, I will r
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Nope. Interesting to find someone actually uses that odd "turn option
> into env var" stuff.
Yeah, and we use it in a decidedly odd way too, but it is useful.
(FWIW, we've stopped needing spaces in any env variables due to other
changes, so fixing this need not be a priori
Package: kernel
Version: 2.6.8
Severity: normal
The 2.4 kernel supports parameters passed on the kernel command line of
the form COUNTRY="United States"; it understands the use of quotes
around the value with a space in it, and sets the environment variable
fine. It seems this support was dropped
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:44:31AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I'm concernd about the status of the 2.6.8 packages, which have been
> > held out of testing for the past week by bug #269164, which nobody seems
> > to be working on (based on the
I wondered what was the status of switching d-i to the 2.4.27 and 2.6.8
kernels, so I prepared this table. The four sets of kernel versions are
those used by linux-kernel-di to produce udebs, the version set in
build/config to use those udebs for the installer boot images, the fallback
value set fo
I'm concernd about the status of the 2.6.8 packages, which have been
held out of testing for the past week by bug #269164, which nobody seems
to be working on (based on the nil response to the report). Since we
were told 2.6.8 was to be the release kernel for sarge, we've switched
the installer to
Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-1-386
Version: 2.4.27-1
Severity: normal
I have here a system which, if the hpt366 module is loaded, behaves very
strangely with this kernel. It seems to not fully detect the ide hard
drive. I'm in the debian installer, so /dev is on devfs. When ide-detect
is loaded, t
Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-1-386
Version: 2.4.27-1
Severity: important
Tags: d-i
I have a pair of oopses using this kernel image to install on my test
laptop using d-i. At boot, I get this one, copied down by hand, in the
middle of usb setup:
ehci_hcd 00:1d.7: BIOS handoff failed (104, 1010001)
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Quoting Joey Hess:
> > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
> > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
> > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release.
>
&g
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The FBIOGET_CON2FBMAP is only implemented for builtin framebuffer
> console and isn't easily implementable for modular framebuffer console.
>
> If nessecary and there's enough space left on the bootdisks we could
> ship a builin framebuffer console. Please start a discu
dann frazier wrote:
> Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> by tbm [3].
One thing to bear in mind when
Well we're seeing a few reports of this by users who fail to install
because of CD DMA problems. Can this be fixed on the kernel side, or do
we need to try to do something in the installer to disable DMA?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Andreas Barth wrote:
> kernel-image-2.4.25-atari/2.4.25-1
Currently udebs produced by linux-kernel-di-m68k include modules taken
from this package, as well as 2.4.26-atari. We have switched to the
2.4.26 kernel for atari in d-i; but to avoid violating the license, the
kernel-image package should n
Kenshi Muto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:36:56 -0400,
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > > This problem is only happened with 2.6.7. 2.4.26 works correctly. And
> > > I remember 2.6.5 works.
> > > I'll try to clarify who
Kenshi Muto wrote:
> I don't what this problem is from, but report for recording.
>
> When I tried to install to VMware(4.5.2 build8848) with 'linux26',
> framebuffer won't be loaded.
> I know this is because rootskel's problem, but I find another
> (more critical) problem.
>
> When I run "modpro
201 - 244 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
