On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:58:51PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > I think Andres already fixed this, but i will let him comment on this.
> They need to be unique per debian architecture.
Bah, no, it is not fixed, it just generated duplicated package entries.
But it is rather easy fixable.
Bastia
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:19:05PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> > So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> > everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
> >
> > The curr
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:58:51PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:24:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > General problems:
> > > - The 2.6 (instead of 2.6.12 etc.) versioning means previous versions
> > > are thrown out of the archive, anything which isn't ready until t
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:24:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > General problems:
> > - The 2.6 (instead of 2.6.12 etc.) versioning means previous versions
> > are thrown out of the archive, anything which isn't ready until then
> > will lose support.
> > It is IMHO not realistic to expect t
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:49:01PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> >> I tend to aggree, though I believe Franz Pop, or perhaps some of the
> >> other d-i team members have reason for keepi
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:49:01PM +0900, Horms wrote:
>> I tend to aggree, though I believe Franz Pop, or perhaps some of the
>> other d-i team members have reason for keeping these images separate.
>> Perhaps they could reiterate them here.
>
> Mostly
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:49:01PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> I tend to aggree, though I believe Franz Pop, or perhaps some of the
> other d-i team members have reason for keeping these images separate.
> Perhaps they could reiterate them here.
Mostly two reasons:
- Changes in the d-i packages don't tr
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The problem is that the DAK will update linux-2.6, kernel-tree-x.y.z-n
> and kernel-image packages without any regards to linux-kernel-di. They
> will become out of sync and end up without source -> GPL violation.
Last I check
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:20:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We seem to be running around in circles here. If an image package
> > depends on kernel-tree-x.y.z-N, then kernel-source-x.y.z can be
> > updated and the image can still be rebuilt, verb
Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We seem to be running around in circles here. If an image package
> depends on kernel-tree-x.y.z-N, then kernel-source-x.y.z can be
> updated and the image can still be rebuilt, verbatim.
>
> Let me try and illustrate by example:
>
> * kernel-source-2.6.8 versio
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow w
Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow w
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 20:00, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> daily builds aren't that big of a deal. If one fails because of a
> kernel change, you update the config and build it manually or the next
> day. This is already what happens with a change in the build-deps (at
> least, if you're not watchin
Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:24:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Really it's just creating udebs with the kernel and specific modules.
>>
>> That would solve a lot of problems, including t
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:24:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Really it's just creating udebs with the kernel and specific modules.
>
> That would solve a lot of problems, including the GPL one. The debs
> and udebs would update at the
Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> The DI kernel udebs (linux-kernel-di- source) takes the
>>
Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> The DI kernel udebs (linux-kernel-di- source) takes the
>> >> kernel-i
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> The DI kernel udebs (linux-kernel-di- source) takes the
> >> kernel-image deb, splits it up into kernel and sev
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> The DI kernel udebs (linux-kernel-di- source) takes the
> >> kernel-image deb, splits it up into kernel and sev
Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The DI kernel udebs (linux-kernel-di- source) takes the
>> kernel-image deb, splits it up into kernel and several groups of
>> modules and builds udebs. There is no Depends there and can't
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:17:00AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> >> > It is IM
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:03:39PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
> [snip]
> > >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
> > >
> > > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like
> > > this:
> > >
> > > Architecture: powerpc
> > > Dep
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:08:59AM +0200, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:20:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> - i'm leaning towards using gcc
Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:17:00AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Andres Salomon wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> > It is IMHO not realistic to expect the rest of the world to wait for
>> >> > some obscure su
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:56:01AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I need to do something about the fact that users go and
> > grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the
> > default gcc any more. Here are three solutio
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:17:00AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> > It is IMHO not realistic to expect the rest of the world to wait for
> >> > some obscure subarchitecture.
> >>
> >> Who said we're go
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
> [snip]
>> > It is IMHO not realistic to expect the rest of the world to wait for
>> > some obscure subarchitecture.
>>
>> Who said we're going to wait for some obscure subarchitecture? We're
>> going to keep working on kerne
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> The bootloader dependencies need to be per flavour. It makes no sense
>> to depend on N bootloaders for an architecture where N-1 are unusable
>> for the specific flavour's kernel image.
>>
>>
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:36:38 -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>> Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
>>
>> - The scripts dir in the linux-headers package must match the flavour.
>
> The problem h
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
[...]
> I need to do something about the fact that users go and
> grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the
> default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought.
>
> 1. Document this somewhere
> 2. Change the makefile to
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
>
> The current changes and state of the pack
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 12:29:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 04:55:42PM +0300, Horms wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> > > So, unless anyone has any c
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:20:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> [...]
> >> - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0
> >> miscompiling things. howev
Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
> >
> > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like
> > this:
> >
> > Architecture: powerpc
> > Depends: initrd-tools (>= 0.1.78), coreutils | fileutils (>= 4.0),
> > module-init-
Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> > It is IMHO not realistic to expect the rest of the world to wait for
> > some obscure subarchitecture.
>
> Who said we're going to wait for some obscure subarchitecture? We're
> going to keep working on kernels until we freeze for etch, at which point
> the su
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
> [snip]
>> >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
>> >
>> > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like
>> > this:
>> >
>> > Architecture: powerpc
>> > Depends: initrd
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:19:05 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
>> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
>> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
>>
>> The current change
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 04:15:39 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
[...]
> - The shell-code is unreadable.
So fix it? :)
I'm still planning on using cdbs2 for packaging in the long term, anyways.
The single-s
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:36:38 -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>> Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
>>
>> - The scripts dir in the linux-headers package must match the flavour.
>
> The problem h
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
>> - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0
>> miscompiling things. however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0,
>> either let me know, or upda
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
>
> The current changes and state of the packaging:
> - source package is called linu
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 12:36:38AM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >- The descriptions are wrong for non-i386.
>
> I am not too happy with how the decscription stuff turned out. I think
> that the boilerplate descriptions should be generated only if the cu
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
- The scripts dir in the linux-headers package must match the flavour.
The problem here is that some architectures (s390, powerpc and mips) are
using two d
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 04:15:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> - linux-headers-.*-all is no dummy package.
Bah, this package is not built anyway.
Bastian
--
You can't evaluate a man by logic alone.
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Hm, anything I'm forgetting?
- The scripts dir in the linux-headers package must match the flavour.
- The descriptions are wrong for non-i386.
- Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
- linux-headers-.*-all is no dummy p
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 04:55:42PM +0300, Horms wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> > So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> > everything's a go for u
* Andres Salomon wrote:
> - there are 3 patches that were in 2.6.11 that have been dropped due to
> lack of interest; sparc, alpha, and powerpc folks should determine
> their value, at some point.
The dropped alpha patch is no longer required with 2.6.12, at least on
my systems the kernel work
Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:53:12PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Was amd64 support merged in or do we still do a seperate amd64 image
>> package?
>
> Amd64 support is part of this package since the very beginning. :-)
>
> Best rega
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
Excellent
> The current changes and state of
Hello,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:53:12PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Was amd64 support merged in or do we still do a seperate amd64 image
> package?
Amd64 support is part of this package since the very beginning. :-)
Best regards
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Descriptio
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
> So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
> everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
Was amd64 support merged in or do we still do a seperate amd64 im
Alright folks, I think the packaging is ready to be beaten on by people.
So, unless anyone has any concerns/problems/etc, I'm going to assume
everything's a go for uploading 2.6.12.
The current changes and state of the packaging:
- source package is called linux-2.6
- binary image packages ha
53 matches
Mail list logo
