* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060727 16:41]:
> On Thursday 27 July 2006 16:19, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > What happened during the Sarge release was that we were aiming all
> > > the time to release ASAP. If you do that, you cannot really relax
> > > your freeze selectively.
> >
> > Well, we're
On Thursday 27 July 2006 16:19, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What happened during the Sarge release was that we were aiming all
> > the time to release ASAP. If you do that, you cannot really relax
> > your freeze selectively.
>
> Well, we're definitly not aiming to release all the time. :)
I meant af
Hi,
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060724 00:34]:
> On Sunday 16 July 2006 17:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Actually, I think it's way more important that we make sure we have
> > infrastructure ready on each and every day to update the kernel, than
> > to try to delay this point in time for a fe
(Sorry for late reply.)
On Sunday 16 July 2006 17:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So far, we can only say: one ABI bump will probably not be enough.
>
> Hm. Frans, how much effort is an ABI bump on the d-i side?
An ABI bump is only a little bit more work for d-i than regular update, as
long as it h
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 04:13:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 16 July 2006 16:08, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > I would like to point out the we will not allow a release of Etch with
> > a vulnerable kernel, as it happened with Sarge, and from discussions on
> > IRC I am sure this is a cons
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:40:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060716 12:55]:
> > [ non-cooperative things ]
>
> Could please someone from the kernel team who is coorporative handle
> this issue? If we don't manage to act together, we cannot release in
> time
* Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060716 16:54]:
> The kernel firmware issue has not been solved yet in Debian. Plans for
> a GR to decide if and which firmware is distributable in Debian after the
> "editorial changes" to the SC have never been realized.
>
> Currently, distributing appro
* Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060716 16:15]:
> Due to various problems, 2.6.16 has not made it into testing yet,
> sadly postponing the BETA3 release of D-I.
> The two local root vulnerabilities have delayed this even more now,
> but latest Linux-2.6.16 was uploaded with urgency=high i
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:26:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Also, obviously I forgot to ask something - how does the firmware issue
> look like to you? Are there critical parts of non-free firmware we need
> to have in the installer? Or is all firmware now remote enough to say
> "well,
On Sunday 16 July 2006 16:08, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> I would like to point out the we will not allow a release of Etch with
> a vulnerable kernel, as it happened with Sarge, and from discussions on
> IRC I am sure this is a consensus. Updating and building the kernel
> images, udebs and the ins
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> our original plan has been to release the d-i RC on 14th August, and
> freeze the kernel for this on July 30th. Is this plan still current? If
> so, can we expect an acceptable kernel on these days?
We should try to meet the original
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060716 12:55]:
> [ non-cooperative things ]
Could please someone from the kernel team who is coorporative handle
this issue? If we don't manage to act together, we cannot release in
time or even not at all, and that would be really sad.
Also, please note that
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> our original plan has been to release the d-i RC on 14th August, and
> freeze the kernel for this on July 30th. Is this plan still current?
What do you mean with "our"?
>
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060716 10:59]:
> our original plan has been to release the d-i RC on 14th August, and
> freeze the kernel for this on July 30th. Is this plan still current? If
> so, can we expect an acceptable kernel on these days?
Also, obviously I forgot to ask something - h
Hi,
our original plan has been to release the d-i RC on 14th August, and
freeze the kernel for this on July 30th. Is this plan still current? If
so, can we expect an acceptable kernel on these days? The plan also
included a small window around October 15th to allow an ABI bump / a new
kernel versi
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:37:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> i've not seen any bit of that tree yet and there is already a lot
> of new features to backport. until that "stable" tree appears talks
> are pretty much speculations.
Yes, agreed; let's see what happens with it first before maki
On Tue, 16 May 2006, dann frazier wrote:
> However, to meet the etch release schedule, we need to begin freezing
> the kernel relatively soon. I am not sure what those dates are
> though; hopefully this will become more clear after the etch release
> discussion at debconf on Thursday (iirc).
i
On Tue, 16 May 2006, maximilian attems wrote:
* lack of features missing in 2.6.16 is already a big list
(smp alternatives, niagara support, raid5 resize, 32 bit iptables on 64
bit kernel, rtc cleanup with faster boot, atapi turned on by default,
huge alsa upgrade)
for a full list see kernel
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:47:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> i disagree for the 2.6.16 choice, will point out the args as following.
> * sarge released with an more than one year old kernel
> that was bad as new hardware from the sarge release day on was not
> supported (d-i jump to the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:47:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> >
> > i disagree for the 2.6.16 choice, will point out the args as following.
> > * sarge released with an more than one year old kernel
> > that was bad as new ha
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:47:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> hello,
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, dann frazier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:46:32PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > Fellow Debian kernel team members,
> > >
> > > let's take the recent "bits from the release team
hello,
On Thu, 11 May 2006, dann frazier wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:46:32PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Fellow Debian kernel team members,
> >
> > let's take the recent "bits from the release team"[1] as an opportunity
> > to start discussing which kernel version we, the Debian
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, actually, there are reasons for both decisions. I think that in
> the end, it is more important to make building packages for etch
> easier.
And as long as its 0-1 more package that can be autobuilt for etch, it
should be just
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060513 02:00]:
> > Of course, I do see the benefit to Bastian's suggestion - we'd have
> > working metapackages for both sid & etch that pull in the latest
> > available in that dist. My proposal l
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060513 21:01]:
> > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm. Do we really want the default for sid to be something that will maybe
> > > never be going into etch ?
>
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:44:36PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:08:34PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37A
* dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060513 21:01]:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm. Do we really want the default for sid to be something that will maybe
> > never be going into etch ?
> I think so; there is a class of users (myself included) who want to
> r
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:08:34PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03
* dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060513 02:00]:
> Of course, I do see the benefit to Bastian's suggestion - we'd have
> working metapackages for both sid & etch that pull in the latest
> available in that dist. My proposal leaves sid meta packages pointing
> at the latest kernel for etch.
Actu
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:08:34PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > > I don't know what Bastian was i
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > I don't know what Bastian was intending; but the scenario I mentioned
> > > was to:
> > > 1) Upload
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > I don't know what Bastian was intending; but the scenario I mentioned
> > was to:
> > 1) Upload linux-2.6.16 to sid w/o metapackages
> > 2) Let linux-2.6.16 migrate
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> I don't know what Bastian was intending; but the scenario I mentioned
> was to:
> 1) Upload linux-2.6.16 to sid w/o metapackages
> 2) Let linux-2.6.16 migrate to sid
3) Upload linux-latest-2.6 via t-p-u
> Either way, yes. We s
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:36:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:39:23PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:15:45AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:39:23PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:15:45AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > - branch the current linux-2.6
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:15:45AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > - branch the current linux-2.6 package into a new source package, say
> > > > linux-2.6.16, track
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:46:32PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Fellow Debian kernel team members,
>
> let's take the recent "bits from the release team"[1] as an opportunity
> to start discussing which kernel version we, the Debian kernel team,
> want Etch to release with.
>
> In these "bi
* dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 21:48]:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:21:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:02:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:31]:
> > > > 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice f
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:21:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:02:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:31]:
> > > 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice for this. He is
> > > biased by
> > > his personal feud o
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Bastian Blank wrote:
Just provide them and either they want them (at least for s390, I do)
or they don't.
For the out-of-tree modules, we will see it in the next days, if it
works. I think this should be done in at most 4 days. If it does not
work, we have to take down the l
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Considering the current upstream 2.6 development model on one side,
and Adrian Bunks intention to maintain 2.6.16.x for the next 2-3 years
on the other side - backporting drivers and other updates like the 2.4
line is handled -, makes the 2.6.16.x lin
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:35:56PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Hello Sven,
> >
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I am little interested in
> > > going this way, if it means another flamewar
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:35:56PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello Sven,
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I am little interested in
> > going this way, if it means another flamewar between me and the d-i team,
> > with
> > everyone else watching silentl
Hello Sven,
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I am little interested in
> going this way, if it means another flamewar between me and the d-i team, with
> everyone else watching silently.
>
> Andreas Barth, you claimed that you could see strong reason not to go this
>
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:15:45AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > - branch the current linux-2.6 package into a new source package, say
> > > linux-2.6.16, tracking 2.6.16.x releases
> > Sounds the right thing to do for me. We ke
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:41:05PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 12:25]:
> > I will not be at debconf, so i will not be able to participate in this
> > discussion.
>
> That's a pity.
Sure, but i can't let my wife alone with my newly bron daugther, so ...
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 12:25]:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:02:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:31]:
> > > 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice for this. He is
> > > biased by
> > > his personal feud over this wi
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:02:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:31]:
> > 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice for this. He is biased
> > by
> > his personal feud over this with me, and i believe has not a good enough
> > oversight o
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > - branch the current linux-2.6 package into a new source package, say
> > linux-2.6.16, tracking 2.6.16.x releases
> Sounds the right thing to do for me. We keep linux-2.6 as trunk package, and
> can branch off any number of kerne
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:06]:
> Andreas Barth, you claimed that you could see strong reason not to go this
> way, please could you comment on them now in this thread.
I think that discussion how to handle udebs should be done inbetween
kernel and boot team, and the right mail a
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:16:31AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060509 23:47]:
> > Second, if we go this path and do an Etch release with 2.6.16.x,
> > I would like to NOT stick forever with that very version we will have in
> > testing at the day the fre
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:06]:
> > Andreas Barth, you claimed that you could see strong reason not to go this
> > way, please could you comment on them now in this thread.
>
> I think that discussion how to handle
* Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060509 23:47]:
> Second, if we go this path and do an Etch release with 2.6.16.x,
> I would like to NOT stick forever with that very version we will have in
> testing at the day the freeze happens, but keep updating the kernel
> images and the installer f
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:06]:
> > Andreas Barth, you claimed that you could see strong reason not to go this
> > way, please could you comment on them now in this thread.
>
> I think that discussion how to handle
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:17]:
> * Frederik Schueler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060509 23:47]:
> > Second, if we go this path and do an Etch release with 2.6.16.x,
> > I would like to NOT stick forever with that very version we will have in
> > testing at the day the freeze happens
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:33]:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:06]:
> > > Andreas Barth, you claimed that you could see strong reason not to go this
> > > way, please could you comment on them now i
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060510 11:31]:
> 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice for this. He is biased by
> his personal feud over this with me, and i believe has not a good enough
> oversight of the problems involved to give a good technical advice. This is
> my
> o
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:46:32PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Fellow Debian kernel team members,
>
> let's take the recent "bits from the release team"[1] as an opportunity
> to start discussing which kernel version we, the Debian kernel team,
> want Etch to release with.
>
> In these "bi
Fellow Debian kernel team members,
let's take the recent "bits from the release team"[1] as an opportunity
to start discussing which kernel version we, the Debian kernel team,
want Etch to release with.
In these "bits", the release team suggests we have a closer look on
2.6.16, which is very lik
59 matches
Mail list logo
