Steve Langasek a écrit :
Hi Aurelien,
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
- The switch to linux-libc-dev 2.6.25 is the reason why glibc currently
FTBFS on hppa (due to a timeout in a test). Unfortunately I don't know
yet which change causes the problem, I am
Hi Aurelien,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
- The switch to linux-libc-dev 2.6.25 is the reason why glibc currently
FTBFS on hppa (due to a timeout in a test). Unfortunately I don't know
yet which change causes the problem, I am down to a 600 lines diff.
Have
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
[...]
I'm having serious trouble parsing what you're trying to say here.
Could you rephrase?
you
* Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 23:31]:
No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
hint added.
Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 23:31]:
No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
hint added.
Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 23:31]:
No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team
Hi,
On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.
Because linux-modules-contrib-2.6 is not ready.
How is a package in contrib holding up a package in main?
regards,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
[...]
I'm having serious trouble parsing what you're trying to say here.
Could you rephrase?
you never checked the rh kernel. they do a *lot* of
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When a new stable *is* uploaded, D-I should be able to switch
faster too (at least, if there's someone willing to do the initial
kernel-wedge work) as the main criterium for D-I to switch to a new
kernel
Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When a new stable *is* uploaded, D-I should be able to switch
faster too (at least, if there's someone willing to do the initial
kernel-wedge work) as the main
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
and is unbackportable (does
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
longer, but D-I has not yet converted to it is NOT one of them.
testing users are currently on an unsupported
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
so unless there is a big fat
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
Changing kernel at this point of the
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
longer, but D-I has not yet converted to it is NOT one of them.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:27:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +, maximilian attems wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
maximilian attems wrote:
* Read-only bind mounts
which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
do it easily without new kernel.
My 2 cents, only.
Regards,
Eugene V.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:41:57PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
maximilian attems wrote:
* Read-only bind mounts
which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
do it easily without new kernel.
not at vfs
(adding d-kernel and d-release)
On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2,
linux-modules-extra-2.6 2.6.25-5
Please wait few more days
Frans Pop a écrit :
Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
things we do want could be backported.
As the release team is Cc:ed, I just want to make sure it is aware that
switching to
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:01PM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Frans Pop a écrit :
Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
things we do want could be backported.
As the release
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
opposed to it. Note that the
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:30:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
(adding d-kernel and d-release)
On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2,
* Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 17:30]:
In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
updates.
FWIW, I fully agree. In the past, we never waited for all arches in
d-i to move to a new kernel
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
.26 is the release kernel.
so i'm happy with push on it.
.25 is a possible backup.
I'd like to get an official statement from RM team about that so we
can move it further.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 17:30]:
In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
updates.
FWIW, I
On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
longer, but D-I has not yet converted to it is NOT one of them.
testing users are currently on an unsupported kernel.
Eh, how does that follow my last para which I assume you
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-07 17:30]:
In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
updates.
FWIW, I fully agree. In the
On Monday 07 July 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
.26 also includes at least one change I know of that is somewhat risky:
PAT support for x86 (which could be disabled).
#d-uk just gave me this tidbit:
... am I missing something or will the move to .26, with libata binding
before most of the IDE stuff,
30 matches
Mail list logo
