On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:16:50PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070116 15:06]:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 06:05:44PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 15:21]:
This fix and the prefered patch (attached) needs testing
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 00:37]:
-Depends: linux-patch-debian-2.6.18 (= 2.6.18-8), linux-source-2.6.18 (=
2.6.18-1) | linux-source-2.6.18 (= 2.6.18-2) | linux-source-2.6.18 (=
2.6.18-3) | linux-source-2.6.18 (= 2.6.18-4) | linux-source-2.6.18 (=
2.6.18-5) |
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:36:37AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, there is another way to do it - hardcode to -dfsg for now, so
this is a change that needs to be reverted at the beginning of the Lenny
cycle. But I think it is still better then the other one, and I don't
think it hurts
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 03:20:52PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
This fix and the prefered patch (attached) needs testing to make sure
the following things works fine:
- linux-patch-debian-*/linux-tree-*
- linux-modules-*
Update; fixes the internal knowledge about the upstream version. This
way
Hi,
thanks for the patch. One small issue:
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 16:14]:
--- debian/changelog (revision 3362)
+++ debian/changelog (local)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-linux-2.6 (2.6.18-9) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+linux-2.6 (2.6.18.dfsg.1-9) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
The standard
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 05:35:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 16:14]:
--- debian/changelog(revision 3362)
+++ debian/changelog(local)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-linux-2.6 (2.6.18-9) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+linux-2.6 (2.6.18.dfsg.1-9)
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070114 15:21]:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:36:37AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, there is another way to do it - hardcode to -dfsg for now, so
this is a change that needs to be reverted at the beginning of the Lenny
cycle. But I think it is still
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070108 12:21]:
* Bastian Blank:
Not possible without another large round of testing. Our infrastracture
currently expects that the upstream part of the version remains
the same through the whole cycle. This information is for example used
to find
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070113 14:28]:
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070113 10:33]:
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070108 12:21]:
* Bastian Blank:
Not possible without another large round of testing. Our infrastracture
currently expects that the
On 01/09/07 14:57, dann frazier wrote:
my Keyspan device. I'm not a lawyer, but its also questionable to me
whether or not the license permits us to distribute it an the the
non-free modules package.
It's probably best to assume that IBM's legal team knows what they are
doing on this one :)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:49:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
I've not seen conclusive evidence that the keyspan firmware file is
not the best effort of freeness.
This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with
Keyspan hardware.
That cannot be considered a best effort of freeness.
On 01/09/07 11:50, dann frazier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:49:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
I've not seen conclusive evidence that the keyspan firmware file is
not the best effort of freeness.
This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with
Keyspan hardware.
That
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:22:51PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
What is
best for the free software movement going forward in your opinion?
Discussing this, if you must discuss it at all, on a discussion list.
That means -project or -kernel, but not -release, please.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
(Removing -release, as requested)
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:22:51PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
What doesn't make sense to me is to throw out stuff like this because
we don't have the code.
aiui, its being dropped out of main because it is not legal for us or
our users to modify it in its
* Bastian Blank:
Not possible without another large round of testing. Our infrastracture
currently expects that the upstream part of the version remains
the same through the whole cycle. This information is for example used
to find all patches.
Uhm, why can't you do a simple full upload just
On 01/06/07 10:13, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.devel.release Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So keyspan USB devices will be useless with Debian kernels in the very
near future, since there is no alternative to the kernel driver?
Looks so. But we will have the most free kernel of
On 01/08/07 17:47, Sam Morris wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:49:19 -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/06/07 10:13, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.devel.release Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So keyspan USB devices will be useless with Debian kernels in the very
near future, since there is
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:52:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That's a big drawback. Please change the *version* of the package instead
of changing the source package *name*.
Not possible without another large round of testing. Our infrastracture
currently expects that the upstream part of
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:54:42PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
The following drivers will be completely removed from the next upload,
because they contain legally not distributable components:
keyspan
So keyspan USB devices will be useless with Debian kernels in the very
near future,
Hi,
On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:27, Frans Pop wrote:
Did you check for packages that have a dependency or build dependency on
linux-2.6? They'd have to be re-uploaded too...
for fai-kernels I'm aware and watching/waiting...
regards,
Holger
pgpyCSL8J2SEf.pgp
Description: PGP
On Saturday 06 January 2007 12:24, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:27, Frans Pop wrote:
Did you check for packages that have a dependency or build dependency
on linux-2.6? They'd have to be re-uploaded too...
for fai-kernels I'm aware and watching/waiting...
That is not
On Sat, Jan 6, 2007 at 12:42:56 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
What I meant is that a name change for the source package to
linux-2.6.18 means that any packages that now have a (build) dep on
linux-2.6 will need to change that dependency (and again when, after the
release the kernel team switches
In linux.debian.devel.release Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So keyspan USB devices will be useless with Debian kernels in the very
near future, since there is no alternative to the kernel driver?
Looks so. But we will have the most free kernel of all Linux
distributions, aren't you happy?
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 10:43:27AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
So keyspan USB devices will be useless with Debian kernels in the very
near future, since there is no alternative to the kernel driver?
The keyspan drivers where already disabled since years.
To be precise, since when the
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 05:27:22AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Did you check for packages that have a dependency or build dependency on
linux-2.6? They'd have to be re-uploaded too...
we rename the source package, not the binary packages. No need to change
anything anywhere, we just want a
On 01/05/07 13:54, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
Today Bastian Blank and I finished the preparations to release the next
linux-2.6 package with an orig.tar.gz complying with the GR2006-007.
The following drivers will be completely removed from the next upload,
because they contain
Frederik Schueler writes:
we rename the source package, not the binary packages. No need to
change anything anywhere, we just want a new tarball in the archive
:-)
Could you explain why a new upstream version number is insufficient?
i.e. why uploading linux-2.6_2.6.18dfsg-1 as a followup to
Frederik Schueler a écrit :
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 05:27:22AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Did you check for packages that have a dependency or build dependency on
linux-2.6? They'd have to be re-uploaded too...
we rename [...]
This looks like you're stating that you still
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:52:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That's a big drawback. Please change the *version* of the package instead
of changing the source package *name*.
DOes everything from the ftp/archive management tools to kernel-package
cope wiuth this? if yes, we can go
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:19:01PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
This doesn't have anything to do with legality. You can legally
distribute these drivers.
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Langasek clearly
states in the name of the release team which drivers have to be dealt
with for the release,
* Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070106 23:45]:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:19:01PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
This doesn't have anything to do with legality. You can legally
distribute these drivers.
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Langasek clearly
states in the name of the release team
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 11:26:12PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:52:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That's a big drawback. Please change the *version* of the package instead
of changing the source package *name*.
DOes everything from the ftp/archive
Frederik Schueler wrote:
Does this create any trouble, beside the package having to go through
the NEW queue?
If it's only a renaming of the source package, and not a change to the
form of the binary package names, then I don't see any problem from a d-i
or debian-cd POV.
--
see shy jo
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:54, Frederik Schueler wrote:
As we need to upload a new orig.tar.gz file, we need to rename the
source package. Among the various possibilities, I think calling it
linux-2.6.18
like we did with linux-2.6.16 seems the best choice, and there will not
be any need
34 matches
Mail list logo
