On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:48:22 +0100, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
And Bastian is decidetly anti make-kpkg and wants to remove all
make-kpkg use from linux-2.6 as stated several times now. You can
see beginings of
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
bug report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on this issue?
...
Again, what is broken about EXTRAVERSION? Which bug reports
are we talking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
bug report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on this issue?
...
Again,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:26:57PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a
bug report number I
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:26:57 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What architecture line are we talking about here? Is there a bug
report number I can refer to to refresh my memory on this issue?
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
From personal experience I must say that bugs reported against
kernel-package get manojs attention fast and get fixed fast.
Bugs against the linux-2.6 source get ignored or you get
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, the real problem is that Manoj could be part of the kernel team, and
to
a point even is, since he has svn access to the repo.
But there is a problem, in that Manoj's
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:47:56AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, the real problem is that Manoj could be part of the kernel team,
and to
a point even is, since he has svn
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 09:31:22AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
And Bastian is decidetly anti make-kpkg and wants to remove all
make-kpkg use from linux-2.6 as stated several times now. You can see
beginings of that in the xen kernels.
That happens if the same problems happens over and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, jonas, i notice also :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403203
Yes. I was slightly baffled about that bugreport fork, and is still
wondering what to do about it: To me is seems like a report against the
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, jonas, i notice also :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403203
Yes. I was slightly baffled about that bugreport fork, and is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I believe that maintaining yaird separately from debian-kernel helps
avoid interest conflicts.
Well, this is where you are wrong, there is no conclict of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
kernel, and the official kernel is only an after thought
In my understanding kernel-package is intended as a _generic_ tool for
Debian-packaging a Linux kernel,
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:50:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sven Luther wrote:
Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
kernel, and the official kernel is only an after thought
This is a egregious mischaracterization of my stance.
In my
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:30:28AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:50:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Sven Luther wrote:
Manoj's principal preocupacion is those user who build their own
kernel, and the official kernel is only an after thought
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:43:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not longer interrested in communicating errors in software,
which is not able to catch errors but reports
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
From personal experience I must say that bugs reported against
kernel-package get manojs attention fast and get fixed fast.
Bugs against the linux-2.6 source get ignored or you get comments like
breaks cross building and
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061201 20:30]:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
What about the remaining (or new) RC bugs ? Some of them being open
against 2.6.17, so
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061201 20:30]:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
What about the remaining
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
What about the remaining (or new) RC bugs ? Some of them being open
against
I think it is a good ideea to adopt 2.6.19 for etch if its possible. I
looked over the changelogs in 2.6.18 and there is one issue that
concerns me:
commit a4fce7747b167aa5e9aa43c4f816744d8a97e021
Author: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 11 01:53:26 2006 -0700
NETFILTER:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:36:30AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
What about the
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The -k7 issue, i don't know, can it be a flavour that was dropped or
something ?
linux-latest-2.6 is not a candidate because not yet uploaded on sparc.
That's the easy part; linux-modules-extra-2.6 is the harder part, currently
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
the following issues:
Ok, do we have a plan for this ?
Not yet.
I'm not longer interrested in communicating errors in software, which is
not able to catch
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:41:08AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The -k7 issue, i don't know, can it be a flavour that was dropped or
something ?
linux-latest-2.6 is not a candidate because not yet uploaded on sparc.
That's the
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
snipp
Frankly, 2.6.16 was a total cock-up. Aside from all the extra work it made
for the release team, I even found patches I had to reapply for alpha
because they were dropped on the floor when 2.6.16 was merged to trunk. I
am very much opposed to
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
the following issues:
Ok, do we have a plan for this ?
Not yet.
Can we upload that today or
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to fix
the following issues:
Ok,
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:36:30AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing today ?
What about the
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should
ignore,
but forced by vorlon, so does this mean it will enter testing
today ? What about
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:43:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says Should
ignore,
but forced
Teodor-Adrian MICU [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is a good ideea to adopt 2.6.19 for etch if its possible.
Please don't unless we can't avoid it. Each time we bring in a new
kernel, those of us who maintain external kernel modules have to do a
bunch of work to catch up with all the API
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 03:41:24PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:48:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
We need another upload of
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:41:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
yes i want to add 2.6.18.5 to linux-2.6 sid,
not sure if it breaks abi through..
Sounds to me like something to look into *after* 2.6.18 has had a chance to
reach testing?
You have to force them than.
Bastian
--
Killing is
34 matches
Mail list logo
