On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Monday 31 October 2005 11:42, maximilian attems wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Dominik Kubla wrote:
The created initramfs drops into a shell because /dev/md0 can not be
mounted. This is a regression from version 0.30.
snipp
Additional infos:
Hi,
I had a problem with the console not working with recent kernels
(debian's 2.6.14/13 images). I found out this is fixed by adding fbcon
to the yaird configs:
pabs3 trave11er: adding fbcon to yaird configs fixed lack of console
trave11er pabs3: good
trave11er pabs3: make sure yaird people are
[resend, it was accidently sent to @lists.debian.org instead of
@bugs.debian.org]
It was suggested to me by Sven Luther, that as vesafb is now
compiled into the kernel, it would make sense to do the same with
fbcon. Can anyone comment on this idea? It sounds like it would
solve most of the
Package: linux-headers-2.6-k7
Version: 2.6.14-1
After installation /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-1-k7/include/asm-i386 dir
is missing. But it is referenced by the symlink:
/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-1-k7/include/asm
In the result it is not possible to compile modules (eg.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:29:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: linux-headers-2.6-k7
Version: 2.6.14-1
After installation /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-1-k7/include/asm-i386 dir
is missing. But it is referenced by the symlink:
/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-1-k7/include/asm
Alle 23:00, martedì 1 novembre 2005, hai scritto:
Could Steinar, the maintainer of evms, could help to clear us some
things?
You have two issues I can see from the previous information in the bug:
- The swapfs plugin not loading. This is probably because you do not have
/sbin/swapon
Kernel-images 2.6.x-686 and 2.6.x-k7 shoud recommend libc6-i686,
because libc6-686 improves system performance when running with
2.6.x-686 and 2.6.x-k7 kernel-images.
Thanks for the clarification.
I now agree with your suggestion.
I will get it into the tree, but
my TODO list is rather long
Alle 11:15, mercoledì 2 novembre 2005, hai scritto:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:11:24AM +0100, Marco Amadori wrote:
But you missed to clear us if mdadm and vgchange are needed to evms to
shows up in case of compatibility volumes, but I think so anyway so I
produced this random code:
I
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.8
reassign 336993 Â yaird
Bug#336993: linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc64: does not boot, failed to mount root
fs
Bug reassigned from package `linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc64' to `Â yaird'.
At Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:06:05 +0900,
Horms wrote:
Hi Vincent,
sorry for the inaction on this problem for so long. I breifly played
around with on my via box, but the sound chip is the older
VT8233/A/8235/8237, so I don't get anywhere. I'm forwarding it to the
alsa maintainers for
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-686
Version: 2.6.14-2
Severity: important
First try:
I got the following messages during boot (I noted them on paper, so
there might be some mistakes)
hda: , ATA disk drive
..
ide0: I/O ressource 0x3F6 - 0x3F6 not free
hda: Error, ports already in use
I just upgraded pound-1.8.2 to pound-1.9.4-1 on a Debian 3.1 serving
up subversion repository.
I verified that pound.cfg (unmodified) still contains these 2 entries:
ExtendedHTTP1
WebDAV 1
After restarting pound, I get PROFIND 501 Not Implemented errors when
I try
Obviously this message was not meant for you. Unfortunately it was
cc'd to a list so you may receive responses (despite my following up
to the list asking that they not respond). Of all the bugs to pick
(242866 instead of 242066) it would have to be a kernel bug that
points at the kernel team.
I understand that the fix is being introduced somewhere in 2.6.14 kernel
development
However I have just installed the Unstable 2.6.14-1-686 kernel + linux-headers,
in particular
the n linux-headers-2.6.14-1-686_2.6.14-1_i386.deb
Now there is shown as the content of
Horms wrote:
Horms,
Thank you for the summary. You have made the versioned patching system
clearer to me. I tried the commands you suggested to build the kernel. I
have had package versioning problems trying to compile etch kernel on
sarge ( gcc (= 4:4.0) kernel-package (= 9.008.3) ).
I
Package: yaird
Version: 0.0.11-10
Severity: important
Hi,
when I try to install linux-image-2.6.14-1-686, this happens:
dias:~# apt-get install
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-386
Version: 2.6.14-2
Severity: normal
The quota support for XFS is gone in the newest kernel. The reason (bug
in configfile) and fix is explained here:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0510.3/1153.html
Kim Hansen
-- System Information:
Debian
Hi,
the compaq smart arrays I have use ida:
/dev/ida/c0d0p5 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
/dev/ida/c0d0p1 on /boot type ext2 (rw)
/dev/ida/c0d0p6 on /home type ext3 (rw,nodev)
as well as /sys/block/ida!c0d0
The module needed is cpqarray
Greetings,
Erich Schubert
--
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc
Version: 2.6.14-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
Linux 2.6.14 used to have every TCP congestion algorithms as builtins but
NewReno + BIC was default.
Linux 2.6.14 has splitted these features into modules. But default remains
NewReno + BIC accordint to
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:16:48PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
Hi,
the compaq smart arrays I have use ida:
/dev/ida/c0d0p5 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
/dev/ida/c0d0p1 on /boot type ext2 (rw)
/dev/ida/c0d0p6 on /home type ext3 (rw,nodev)
as well as /sys/block/ida!c0d0
The module
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:54:09PM +0600, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
So, having in mind the two levels of 'stablenesss': kernel
'stableness' and modules 'stableness' :) we should find the way to
exclude discussed modules from the build, because in-kernel versions
will always be, erm..., slightly
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:42:20PM +0200, Antonio Kanouras wrote:
yaird error: uuid '472dd55c-c2ab-462b-a7b1-2cc890b2d074' not found
(/etc/fstab:5) (fatal)
I attached a copy of my /etc/fstab.
UUID=472dd55c-c2ab-462b-a7b1-2cc890b2d074 / xfs
defaults0 1
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that the fix is being introduced somewhere in 2.6.14 kernel
development
However I have just installed the Unstable 2.6.14-1-686 kernel + linux-headers,
in particular
the n linux-headers-2.6.14-1-686_2.6.14-1_i386.deb
Now there is
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-686
Version: 2.6.14-2
Followup-For: Bug #337045
I have experienced exactly the same problem, just once, at boot-up time.
It dumped me to busybox and I snooped around- there didn't appear to be
anything dramatically different, but it reported the exact same error.
* Kim Hansen wrote:
The quota support for XFS is gone in the newest kernel. The reason
(bug in configfile) and fix is explained here:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0510.3/1153.html
Thanks, I hope this will get fixed in 2.6.14.1, so it's not worth to
add a new patch to svn yet.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 337089 + pending
Bug#337089: linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc: add CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BIC=y
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 08:51, maximilian attems wrote:
[...]
hmm i had suspected a more esoteric setup.
tested it myself with latest initramfs-tools on raid root.
[...]
yes can you put the initramfs archive somewhere online where i can take a
look at it.
how did you generate it?
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-686-smp
Version: 2.6.14-2
Followup-For: Bug #333522
Well, I can pretty consistently reproduce this bug, and an interesting
datapoint is that even a manual modprobe after startup causes further
Unknown symbol problems.
I do not know if this is because
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now there is shown as the content of
/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-1-686/.extraversion
2.6.14-1-686
This is the full version, rather than the persumably desired
EXTRAVERSION component
This is fixed in 2.6.14-2 from unstable.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
One thing I did do directly before this error is try and remove tg3 and
replace with the non-free bcm5700 network card driver (the reboot was
supposed to finish the replacement, until I realised the initramfs is
loading all my modules now- which is a different bag of fun for a
different bug
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc64
Version: 2.6.14-1
Severity: normal
$ sudo modprobe i2c-pmac-smu
FATAL: Error inserting i2c_pmac_smu
(/lib/modules/2.6.14-1-powerpc64/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pmac-smu.ko):
Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg)
$ dmesg | tail -1
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:45:21PM +0100, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-powerpc64
Version: 2.6.14-1
Severity: normal
$ sudo modprobe i2c-pmac-smu
FATAL: Error inserting i2c_pmac_smu
(/lib/modules/2.6.14-1-powerpc64/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pmac-smu.ko):
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 05:53, Sven Luther wrote:
$ more /proc/mounts
rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
/dev2/root2 / ext3 rw 0 0
Which seems suspiciously non-useful :)
I guess this is just the first two lines? The non-useful is probably a
result of pivot-root which neglects to make sure
FYI: The status of the yaird source package in Debian's testing
distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0.0.11-3
Current version: 0.0.11-10
--
This email was generated by a cronjob set up by Henning Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and is based on post-hoc comparison on of
Sources.gz files.
I am sorry, but its not possible for me to try the other kernel version. The
filesystem is so corrupted that e2fsck segfaults after multiple filesystem
errors have been corrected and the setup (raid, crypto) is too complicated to
quickly rebuild and test it.
But i found this 4 year old statement
Hi,
This is a major reorganization of the rules file that helps
create kernel related packages. The crusty old mechanism has been
removed, the targets are now streamlined, and the policy mandated
dependencies are now called out into a separate file. This should
allow a future
Please ignore/delete the comments about snd_intel8x0, that is a totally
unrelated bug. I tried Rusty's proposed fix for modprobe.c (in bug
333052) and it solves the problem reported in 522 and 333052 for
me (running on a stock linux-image-2.6.14-2 with initramfs made by
initramfs-tools).
--
I tried Rusty's suggested patch to modprobe.c (moving the lock forward).
Works like a charm with stock 2.6.14-2 with an initramfs based upon
initramfs-tools.
Please ignore my comments about manual modprobes and the intel sound stuff
screwing up with unknown symbols, I realized that that is a
Accepted:
linux-headers-2.6-32-smp_2.6.14-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6-32-smp_2.6.14-2_hppa.deb
linux-headers-2.6-32_2.6.14-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6-32_2.6.14-2_hppa.deb
linux-headers-2.6-64-smp_2.6.14-2_hppa.deb
to
Subject: fails to parse LABEL=/ correctly
Package: yaird
Version: 0.0.11-10
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
yaird gives an error when it parses my fstab, saying that label ()
wasn't found. My fstab contains the lines
LABEL=/ / ext3defaults,errors=remount-ro 0
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 337168 yaird fails to parse LABEL=/ correctly
Bug#337168: (no subject)
Changed Bug title.
stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Package: linux-2.6
Followup-For: Bug #268583
Could any of the affected parties verify this is still a problem
with 2.6.12-4. I expect it is, but it would be good to verify.
i couldn't find a linux-image-2.6.12-4 package anwhere, but i can
verify that the kernel log contains this error:
Nov 2
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:06:50AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:52:52 -0700
Vagrant Cascadian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unfortunately, i still wasn't able to get it to boot, having
similar/identical issues as with initramfs-tools: debian bug 336519
Ahh, here's an
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.37
Severity: normal
The generated initrd has ld.so in /lib, but no /lib64 symlink. But the ELF
interpreter of all amd64 binaries points to /lib64. So the kernel fails to
load /bin/sh.
I'm going to try with the directory manually created next.
-- System
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.37
Followup-For: Bug #336317
I'm encountering the same problem, I think.
I've got LVM running on top of RAID-1. When I get dropped to a busybox
prompt, USB isn't loaded yet (could we do this _before_ messing with the
root FS, please?) so I can't poke around.
Jurij
Thanks with the new :
linux-headers-2.6.14-1-686_2.6.14-2_i386.deb
linux-headers-2.6.14-1_2.6.14-2_i386.deb
There are two improvents.
1) the ltmodem driver compile itself is successful
2) with the .extraversion corrected to -1-686
The installation is correct to
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#335154: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336450: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#335601: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336450: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336509: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#333003: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336509: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336509: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336566: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336585: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336585: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336567: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336585: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336509: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336585: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336585: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336612: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336612: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336612: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336612: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:09 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336612: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:10 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336636: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:10 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336636: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:10 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336636: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:10 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336636: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:10 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336636: fixed in yaird 0.0.11-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
yaird_0.0.11-11_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
yaird_0.0.11-11.dsc
yaird_0.0.11-11.diff.gz
yaird_0.0.11-11_powerpc.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Accepted:
yaird_0.0.11-11.diff.gz
to pool/main/y/yaird/yaird_0.0.11-11.diff.gz
yaird_0.0.11-11.dsc
to pool/main/y/yaird/yaird_0.0.11-11.dsc
yaird_0.0.11-11_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/y/yaird/yaird_0.0.11-11_powerpc.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 333003
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 07:01:48PM -0500, Michael Stroucken wrote:
yaird gives an error when it parses my fstab, saying that label ()
wasn't found. My fstab contains the lines
LABEL=/ / ext3defaults,errors=remount-ro 0 1
LABEL=/boot /boot
76 matches
Mail list logo
