On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier 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
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:58:16AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered
Sven Luther wrote:
I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that
his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated.
If he was using 2.4.27 tell him to use 2.4.26 for now. As I've mentioned
in other mails I just fixed 2.4.27, in trunk.
--
Joshua Kwan
] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
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
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision.
Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we
need a designated person or persons who can
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have a
* dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-27 21:25]:
The only thing questionable about it, afaict, is the ide dma issue[1], which
appears to have been a problem with our patch set[2], so should be resolvable.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/08/msg00790.html
[2]
Steve Langasek wrote:
We depend on the experts (the kernel team) for the information we need
in order to make good decisions -- or better, to help *you* make good
decisions.
Based on this thread and other discussions, I understand that the
current 2.4.26 packages are unsuitable for release because
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing
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 making this
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, 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
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is
misleading.
Given the diff to .1 is tiny and four-digit version
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:10:55PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was
new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier
version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78
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.
Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst images do
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
[snip]
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be
build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security
issues.
... not
-Original Message-
From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org;
debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
Raphael Hertzog wrote
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, 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
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
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].
On a similar note, it has been known for
24 matches
Mail list logo
