Bug#606440: linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1)
Package: linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 Version: 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1 Severity: normal Hi, i tryed to build and load a module running the kernel in version: linux-image-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1 trying to load the module i get the following messages: # modprobe drbd FATAL: Error inserting drbd (/lib/modules/2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64/kernel/extra/drbd.ko): Invalid module format # dmesg [ 1480.020410] drbd: disagrees about version of symbol module_layout The module is a drbd-Module made with a modified drbd8-source Pakage (using divert). Loading it with kernelverison 2.6.32-26~bpo50+1 works fine. Seems there were changes between 2.6.32-23 and 2.6.32-26 which should lead to a higher abi-version number (or i misunderstood http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-packaging.html#s-arch-dep) ? Can anybody confirm this on squeeze too? Thx for your help! Regards, Ulrich Goettlich -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.7 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/ui-bash Versions of packages linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 depends on: ii gcc-4.34.3.2-1.1 The GNU C compiler ii linux-headers-2.6.32-b 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1 Common header files for Linux 2.6. ii linux-kbuild-2.6.322.6.32-1~bpo50+1 Kbuild infrastructure for Linux 2. linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 recommends no packages. linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 suggests no packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101209090310.5161.31361.report...@ovzd3b.1and1.com
Processed: Re: Bug#606440: linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1)
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 606440 linux-2.6 Bug #606440 [linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64] linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1) Warning: Unknown package 'linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64' Bug reassigned from package 'linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64' to 'linux-2.6'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1. -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 606440: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=606440 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12918856846737.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#606440: marked as done (linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1))
Your message dated Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:18:16 +0100 with message-id 20101209091816.ga26...@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org and subject line Re: Bug#606440: linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1) has caused the Debian Bug report #606440, regarding linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: Modules build with this headers could not be loaded on kernel (version 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1) 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 606440: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=606440 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 Version: 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1 Severity: normal Hi, i tryed to build and load a module running the kernel in version: linux-image-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 2.6.32-23~bpo50+1 trying to load the module i get the following messages: # modprobe drbd FATAL: Error inserting drbd (/lib/modules/2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64/kernel/extra/drbd.ko): Invalid module format # dmesg [ 1480.020410] drbd: disagrees about version of symbol module_layout The module is a drbd-Module made with a modified drbd8-source Pakage (using divert). Loading it with kernelverison 2.6.32-26~bpo50+1 works fine. Seems there were changes between 2.6.32-23 and 2.6.32-26 which should lead to a higher abi-version number (or i misunderstood http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-packaging.html#s-arch-dep) ? Can anybody confirm this on squeeze too? Thx for your help! Regards, Ulrich Goettlich -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.7 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/ui-bash Versions of packages linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 depends on: ii gcc-4.34.3.2-1.1 The GNU C compiler ii linux-headers-2.6.32-b 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1 Common header files for Linux 2.6. ii linux-kbuild-2.6.322.6.32-1~bpo50+1 Kbuild infrastructure for Linux 2. linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 recommends no packages. linux-headers-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64 suggests no packages. ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:03:10AM +0100, Ulrich Goettlich wrote: The module is a drbd-Module made with a modified drbd8-source Pakage (using divert). Loading it with kernelverison 2.6.32-26~bpo50+1 works fine. The kernel already includes a working drbd. Seems there were changes between 2.6.32-23 and 2.6.32-26 which should lead to a higher abi-version number (or i misunderstood http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-packaging.html#s-arch-dep) ? No. The ABI of special images like openvz is not always kept stable. Bastian -- Each kiss is as the first. -- Miramanee, Kirk's wife, The Paradise Syndrome, stardate 4842.6 ---End Message---
Bug#604802: firmware-brcm80211: wifi does not work anymore after using pm-hibernate
After an upgrade, it seems to work. Bug can be closed :-). -- Félix signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:35:50PM +, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, making it impossible to always select the correct userland architecture for the resulting debian package. Might also be usefull, if you want a i386 userland with a amd64 kernel. Example usage: make DEBARCH=i386 deb-pkg hmm the conclusion was to prepend a KBUILD_ prefix for a kbuild variable? Any reason why that was overlooked? I checked man devscripts and saw yet no definition of DEBARCH, but in order not to have any potential conflicts and to keep namespase sane I think it is very much preferred to use KBUILD_DEBARCH. thanks -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101209142447.ga12...@vostochny.stro.at
[PATCH v3] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture
Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the
sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel,
making it impossible to always select the correct userland
architecture for the resulting debian package.
Might also be usefull, if you want a i386 userland with a amd64 kernel.
Example usage:
make KBUILD_DEBARCH=i386 deb-pkg
LKML-reference: alpine.deb.2.02.1011051437500.13...@aurora.sdinet.de
Signed-off-by: Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen asbj...@asbjorn.biz
Reviewed-by: WANG Cong xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com
Acked-by: maximilian attems m...@stro.at
---
Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt |8
scripts/package/builddeb|3 +++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt
index 634c625..9cf3bf0 100644
--- a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt
@@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ But some architectures such as x86 and sparc have aliases.
x86: i386 for 32 bit, x86_64 for 64 bit
sparc: sparc for 32 bit, sparc64 for 64 bit
+KBUILD_DEBARCH
+--
+For the deb-pkg target, allows overriding the normal heuristics deployed by
+deb-deb. Normally deb-pkg attempts to guess the right architecture based on
+the UTS_MACHINE variable, and on some architectures also the kernel config.
+The value of KBUILD_DEBARCH is assumed (not checked) to be a valid Debian
+architecture.
+
CROSS_COMPILE
--
Specify an optional fixed part of the binutils filename.
diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb
index 5d6be3f..ffe2419 100644
--- a/scripts/package/builddeb
+++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ create_package() {
echo Please add support for $UTS_MACHINE to ${0} ... 2
echo 2
esac
+ if [ -n $KBUILD_DEBARCH ] ; then
+ debarch=$KBUILD_DEBARCH
+ fi
if [ -n $debarch ] ; then
forcearch=-DArchitecture=$debarch
fi
--
1.7.2.3
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1291908254-19468-1-git-send-email-asbj...@asbjorn.biz
Bug#603632: same issue
Hi I'm seeing the same issue on r410. 2.6.32-28 with numa=noacpi doesn't help though. Or isn't this yet in that kernel? Thanks Rudy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d00f7b3.8050...@ugent.be
Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture
On 12/09/2010 02:24 PM, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:35:50PM +, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, making it impossible to always select the correct userland architecture for the resulting debian package. Might also be usefull, if you want a i386 userland with a amd64 kernel. Example usage: make DEBARCH=i386 deb-pkg hmm the conclusion was to prepend a KBUILD_ prefix for a kbuild variable? Any reason why that was overlooked? I checked man devscripts and saw yet no definition of DEBARCH, but in order not to have any potential conflicts and to keep namespase sane I think it is very much preferred to use KBUILD_DEBARCH. Sorry, I forgot it, patch comming up. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d00f473.9090...@asbjorn.biz
Re: [PATCH v3] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture
On 9.12.2010 16:24, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, making it impossible to always select the correct userland architecture for the resulting debian package. Might also be usefull, if you want a i386 userland with a amd64 kernel. Example usage: make KBUILD_DEBARCH=i386 deb-pkg LKML-reference: alpine.deb.2.02.1011051437500.13...@aurora.sdinet.de Signed-off-by: Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen asbj...@asbjorn.biz Reviewed-by: WANG Cong xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com Acked-by: maximilian attems m...@stro.at --- Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt |8 scripts/package/builddeb|3 +++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt index 634c625..9cf3bf0 100644 --- a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt +++ b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt @@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ But some architectures such as x86 and sparc have aliases. x86: i386 for 32 bit, x86_64 for 64 bit sparc: sparc for 32 bit, sparc64 for 64 bit +KBUILD_DEBARCH +-- +For the deb-pkg target, allows overriding the normal heuristics deployed by +deb-deb. Normally deb-pkg attempts to guess the right architecture based on ^^^ deb-pkg? Michal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d00f709.1000...@suse.cz
Re: [PATCH v3] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture
On 12/09/2010 03:34 PM, Michal Marek wrote: On 9.12.2010 16:24, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, making it impossible to always select the correct userland architecture for the resulting debian package. Might also be usefull, if you want a i386 userland with a amd64 kernel. Example usage: make KBUILD_DEBARCH=i386 deb-pkg LKML-reference: alpine.deb.2.02.1011051437500.13...@aurora.sdinet.de Signed-off-by: Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen asbj...@asbjorn.biz Reviewed-by: WANG Cong xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com Acked-by: maximilian attems m...@stro.at --- Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt |8 scripts/package/builddeb|3 +++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt index 634c625..9cf3bf0 100644 --- a/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt +++ b/Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.txt @@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ But some architectures such as x86 and sparc have aliases. x86: i386 for 32 bit, x86_64 for 64 bit sparc: sparc for 32 bit, sparc64 for 64 bit +KBUILD_DEBARCH +-- +For the deb-pkg target, allows overriding the normal heuristics deployed by +deb-deb. Normally deb-pkg attempts to guess the right architecture based on ^^^ deb-pkg? Sure. Anything else before I make a v4? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d00f8cf.7010...@asbjorn.biz
Bug#606482: 2.6.32-5-amd64: no headphone output on ASUS M4A785T-D motherboard
Package: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 Version: 2.6.32-28 Severity: normal On this hardware: 00:14.2 Audio device [0403]: ATI Technologies Inc SBx00 Azalia (Intel HDA) [1002:4383] Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. M4A785TD Motherboard [1043:836c] Kernel driver in use: HDA Intel 01:05.1 Audio device [0403]: ATI Technologies Inc RS880 Audio Device [Radeon HD 4200] [1002:970f] Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. M4A785TD Motherboard [1043:83a2] Kernel driver in use: HDA Intel I get no sound through the headphone output when using the above named kernel. I do get sound through the rear speaker output. Using the kernel in Ubuntu 10.04 (2.6.32-26-generic version 2.6.32-26.48) on the same hardware I do get sound through the headphone output. Looking at the kernel source code, I see that Debian's kernel includes many patches backported from newer kernels (there are 19 patches in debian/patches/features/all/hda-via/). Codec information collected by alsa-info: Codec: VIA VT1708S Address: 0 Function Id: 0x1 Vendor Id: 0x11060397 Subsystem Id: 0x1043836c Revision Id: 0x10 No Modem Function Group found Default PCM: rates [0x0]: bits [0x0]: formats [0x0]: efault Amp-In caps: N/A Default Amp-Out caps: N/A GPIO: io=1, o=0, i=0, unsolicited=1, wake=0 IO[0]: enable=0, dir=0, wake=0, sticky=0, data=0, unsol=0 Node 0x10 [Audio Output] wcaps 0x41d: Stereo Amp-Out Amp-Out caps: ofs=0x2a, nsteps=0x2a, stepsize=0x05, mute=0 Amp-Out vals: [0x2a 0x2a] Converter: stream=0, channel=0 PCM: rates [0x5e0]: 44100 48000 88200 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Node 0x11 [Audio Output] wcaps 0x41d: Stereo Amp-Out Amp-Out caps: ofs=0x2a, nsteps=0x2a, stepsize=0x05, mute=0 Amp-Out vals: [0x2a 0x2a] Converter: stream=0, channel=0 PCM: rates [0x5e0]: 44100 48000 88200 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Node 0x12 [Audio Output] wcaps 0x611: Stereo Digital Converter: stream=0, channel=0 Digital: Digital category: 0x0 PCM: rates [0x5e0]: 44100 48000 88200 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Node 0x13 [Audio Input] wcaps 0x10051b: Stereo Amp-In Amp-In caps: ofs=0x0b, nsteps=0x1f, stepsize=0x05, mute=1 Amp-In vals: [0x00 0x00] Converter: stream=0, channel=0 SDI-Select: 0 PCM: rates [0x560]: 44100 48000 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Connection: 1 0x17 Node 0x14 [Audio Input] wcaps 0x10051b: Stereo Amp-In Amp-In caps: ofs=0x0b, nsteps=0x1f, stepsize=0x05, mute=1 Amp-In vals: [0x00 0x00] Converter: stream=0, channel=0 SDI-Select: 0 PCM: rates [0x560]: 44100 48000 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Connection: 1 0x1e Node 0x15 [Audio Output] wcaps 0x611: Stereo Digital Converter: stream=0, channel=0 Digital: Digital category: 0x0 PCM: rates [0x5e0]: 44100 48000 88200 96000 192000 bits [0xe]: 16 20 24 formats [0x1]: PCM Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Node 0x16 [Audio Mixer] wcaps 0x20050b: Stereo Amp-In Amp-In caps: ofs=0x17, nsteps=0x1f, stepsize=0x05, mute=1 Amp-In vals: [0x1f 0x1f] [0x00 0x00] [0x00 0x00] [0x00 0x00] [0x00 0x00] [0x97 0x97] [0x97 0x97] Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Connection: 7 0x10 0x1f 0x1a 0x1b 0x1e 0x1d 0x25 Node 0x17 [Audio Selector] wcaps 0x300501: Stereo Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Connection: 6 0x1f 0x1a* 0x1b 0x1e 0x1d 0x16 Node 0x18 [Audio Selector] wcaps 0x30050d: Stereo Amp-Out Amp-Out caps: ofs=0x00, nsteps=0x00, stepsize=0x00, mute=1 Amp-Out vals: [0x00 0x00] Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Connection: 1 0x11 Node 0x19 [Pin Complex] wcaps 0x400581: Stereo Pincap 0x0014: OUT Detect Pin Default 0x01011012: [Jack] Line Out at Ext Rear Conn = 1/8, Color = Black DefAssociation = 0x1, Sequence = 0x2 Pin-ctls: 0x40: OUT Unsolicited: tag=04, enabled=1 Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Connection: 1 0x18 Node 0x1a [Pin Complex] wcaps 0x400581: Stereo Pincap 0x2334: IN OUT Detect Vref caps: HIZ 50 100 Pin Default 0x01a19036: [Jack] Mic at Ext Rear Conn = 1/8, Color = Pink DefAssociation = 0x3, Sequence = 0x6 Pin-ctls: 0x21: IN VREF_50 Unsolicited: tag=04, enabled=1 Power: setting=D3, actual=D3 Connection: 1 0x26 Node 0x1b [Pin Complex] wcaps 0x400581: Stereo Pincap 0x2334: IN OUT Detect Vref caps: HIZ 50 100 Pin Default 0x0181303e: [Jack] Line In at Ext Rear Conn = 1/8, Color = Blue DefAssociation = 0x3, Sequence = 0xe Pin-ctls: 0x20: IN VREF_HIZ Unsolicited: tag=04, enabled=1 Power: setting=D0, actual=D0 Connection: 1 0x18 Node 0x1c [Pin Complex] wcaps 0x40058d: Stereo Amp-Out Amp-Out caps: ofs=0x00, nsteps=0x00, stepsize=0x00, mute=1 Amp-Out vals: [0x00 0x00]
Processed: [bts-link] source package linux-2.6
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: # # bts-link upstream status pull for source package linux-2.6 # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html # user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org Setting user to bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org (was bts-link-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org). # remote status report for #588782 (http://bugs.debian.org/588782) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509 # * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) - WONTFIX # * upstream said bug is wontfix tags 588782 + upstream wontfix Bug #588782 [linux-2.6] openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check Bug #586369 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.32-5-openvz-686: Kernel oops, with openvz kernel and ext4 Added tag(s) upstream and wontfix. Added tag(s) upstream and wontfix. usertags 588782 - status-NEW Bug#588782: openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check Usertags were: status-NEW. Usertags are now: . usertags 588782 + status-RESOLVED resolution-WONTFIX Bug#588782: openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: resolution-WONTFIX status-RESOLVED. # remote status report for #588782 (http://bugs.debian.org/588782) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509 # * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) - WONTFIX # * upstream said bug is wontfix tags 588782 + upstream wontfix Bug #588782 [linux-2.6] openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check Bug #586369 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.32-5-openvz-686: Kernel oops, with openvz kernel and ext4 Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #588782 to the same tags previously set Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #586369 to the same tags previously set usertags 588782 - status-NEW Bug#588782: openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check Usertags were: resolution-WONTFIX status-RESOLVED. Usertags are now: resolution-WONTFIX status-RESOLVED. usertags 588782 + status-RESOLVED resolution-WONTFIX Bug#588782: openvz: openvz and ext4 core dump on quota check Usertags were: resolution-WONTFIX status-RESOLVED. Usertags are now: resolution-WONTFIX status-RESOLVED. # remote status report for #604470 (http://bugs.debian.org/604470) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1712 # * remote status changed: (?) - NEW usertags 604470 + status-NEW Bug#604470: linux-image-2.6.32-5-openvz-amd64: degraded inbound network bandwidth There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: status-NEW. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 604470: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=604470 588782: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588782 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.129191247729140.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
[bts-link] source package linux-2.6
# # bts-link upstream status pull for source package linux-2.6 # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html # user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org # remote status report for #588782 (http://bugs.debian.org/588782) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509 # * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) - WONTFIX # * upstream said bug is wontfix tags 588782 + upstream wontfix usertags 588782 - status-NEW usertags 588782 + status-RESOLVED resolution-WONTFIX # remote status report for #588782 (http://bugs.debian.org/588782) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509 # * remote status changed: NEW - RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) - WONTFIX # * upstream said bug is wontfix tags 588782 + upstream wontfix usertags 588782 - status-NEW usertags 588782 + status-RESOLVED resolution-WONTFIX # remote status report for #604470 (http://bugs.debian.org/604470) # * http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1712 # * remote status changed: (?) - NEW usertags 604470 + status-NEW thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101209163437.18980.64133.btsl...@busoni.debian.org
Bug#603944: Updated patch
Here is a patch (against the ubuntu package, just as example)
which instead of doing a dumb retry loop, waits for udev.
=== modified file 'debian/changelog'
--- debian/changelog2010-04-26 15:17:47 +
+++ debian/changelog2010-12-08 21:44:32 +
@@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
+initramfs-tools (0.92bubuntu79) natty; urgency=low
+
+ * When using multipath, it is possible that mountroot() will race
+with udev's renaming of /dev/disk/by-uuid/{rootfs-uuid} from
+/dev/sd?? to /dev/mapper/something. After multipath has grabbed
+the /dev/sd?? and until udev completes the rename, mounting
+/dev/disk/by-uuid/{rootfs-uuid} will fail with -EBUSY. In that
+case, call 'udevsettle' to wait until udev has finished all its
+related actions. (Closes LP: #686832)
+
+ -- Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:19:43 -0600
+
initramfs-tools (0.92bubuntu78) lucid; urgency=low
* hooks/compcache: Escape $-expansions inside EOF (thanks, Eugene San;
=== modified file 'scripts/local'
--- scripts/local 2009-12-21 23:06:53 +
+++ scripts/local 2010-11-20 01:03:26 +
@@ -69,10 +69,19 @@
# FIXME This has no error checking
[ -n ${FSTYPE} ] modprobe ${FSTYPE}
- # FIXME This has no error checking
# Mount root
- mount ${roflag} ${FSTYPE:+-t ${FSTYPE} }${ROOTFLAGS} ${ROOT} ${rootmnt}
- mountroot_status=$?
+ tries=0
+ ret=1
+ while [ $tries -lt 2 -a $ret -ne 0 ]; do
+ mount ${roflag} ${FSTYPE:+-t ${FSTYPE} }${ROOTFLAGS} ${ROOT}
${rootmnt}
+ ret=$?
+ if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
+ echo failed attempt $tries to mount $ROOT as root
+ udevadm settle
+ tries=$((tries+1))
+ fi
+ done
+ mountroot_status=$ret
if [ $LOOP ]; then
if [ $mountroot_status != 0 ]; then
if [ ${FSTYPE} = ntfs ] || [ ${FSTYPE} = vfat ]; then
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101209212028.ga24...@hallyn.com
Bug#606520: linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions
Package: linux-tools-2.6.36 Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 Severity: serious /usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct? It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl: $ ldd /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36|grep ssl libssl.so.0.9.8 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 (0x7f20fad1f000) Has perf upstream given an exception to GPLv2 to allow us to do this or is this indeed a real problem? -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fi_FI (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.36 depends on: ii binutils2.20.1-15The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii libc6 2.11.2-7 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib ii libelf1 0.148-1 library to read and write ELF file ii libperl5.10 5.10.1-16shared Perl library ii libpython2.62.6.6-6 Shared Python runtime library (ver ii perl5.10.1-16Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii python 2.6.6-3+squeeze1 interactive high-level object-orie ii python-support 1.0.10 automated rebuilding support for P Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.36 recommends: ii linux-base 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 Linux image base package Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.36 suggests: pn linux-doc-2.6.36 none (no description available) -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/84hbembpcu@sauna.l.org
Bug#606520: linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Package: linux-tools-2.6.36 Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 Severity: serious /usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct? It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl: $ ldd /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36|grep ssl libssl.so.0.9.8 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 (0x7f20fad1f000) Has perf upstream given an exception to GPLv2 to allow us to do this or is this indeed a real problem? I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)! Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Processed: severity of 606520 is serious
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 606520 serious Bug #606520 [linux-tools-2.6.36] linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions Ignoring request to change severity of Bug 606520 to the same value. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 606520: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=606520 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.129195218624870.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#606520: linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 03:36 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Package: linux-tools-2.6.36 Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 Severity: serious /usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct? It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl: $ ldd /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36|grep ssl libssl.so.0.9.8 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 (0x7f20fad1f000) Has perf upstream given an exception to GPLv2 to allow us to do this or is this indeed a real problem? I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)! This is due to embedding Python: $ objdump -p /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 | grep NEEDED NEEDED libperl.so.5.10 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libc.so.6 NEEDED libcrypt.so.1 NEEDED libutil.so.1 NEEDED libpython2.6.so.1.0 NEEDED librt.so.1 NEEDED libelf.so.1 NEEDED libnewt.so.0.52 NEEDED libslang.so.2 NEEDED libbfd-2.20.1-system.20100303.so $ objdump -p /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so.1.0 | grep NEEDED NEEDED libssl.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libcrypto.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libz.so.1 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libutil.so.1 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libc.so.6 Since perf doesn't use any of the functionality in libssl via Python, I'm not convinced there's a problem here. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#605756: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: Can't burn CD-R media on 2.6.32-5, can burn CDRW. Both work if 2.6.26-2 booted
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote: Please can you also add to that report that you got the same results under 2.6.36. Done. Following a suggestion from a responder on kernel.org an eject/reload does allow the CDR to be verified as matching the original ISO. A reasonable workaround but still kind of odd. Louis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1012092150110.2...@caritas.hethcote.com
Bug#605756: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: Can't burn CD-R media on 2.6.32-5, can burn CDRW. Both work if 2.6.26-2 booted
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 21:52 -0700, loupga...@hethcote.com wrote: On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote: Please can you also add to that report that you got the same results under 2.6.36. Done. Following a suggestion from a responder on kernel.org an eject/reload does allow the CDR to be verified as matching the original ISO. A reasonable workaround but still kind of odd. So burning is fine, but reading returns an error? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Incomplete upload found in Debian upload queue
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in the Debian upload queue directory: linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.diff.gz linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.dsc This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job cannot be processed. If no .changes file arrives within 23:06:17, the files will be deleted. If you didn't upload those files, please just ignore this message. Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1pqwzj-0004gg...@franck.debian.org
Bug#606520: linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes: I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)! Hmm, are you planning to file a separate bug report about that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/84d3paayva@sauna.l.org
Bug#606520: linux-tools-2.6.36: /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 links against openssl but copyright lists only GPLv2 without exceptions
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes: Since perf doesn't use any of the functionality in libssl via Python, I'm not convinced there's a problem here. Good. Would it be appropriate to describe this in copyright file though? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/848vzyaytz@sauna.l.org
Processing of linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_multi.changes
linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.dsc linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5.orig.tar.gz linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.diff.gz linux-support-2.6.37-rc5_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-patch-debian-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-base_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb firmware-linux-free_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-source-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-doc-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-manual-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1pqxds-0005wi...@franck.debian.org
linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_multi.changes is NEW
firmware-linux-free_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/firmware-linux-free_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.diff.gz to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.diff.gz linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.dsc to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.dsc linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5.orig.tar.gz to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5.orig.tar.gz linux-base_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-base_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-doc-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-doc-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-manual-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-manual-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-patch-debian-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-patch-debian-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb linux-source-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb to main/l/linux-2.6/linux-source-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb (new) linux-support-2.6.37-rc5_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb optional devel Support files for Linux 2.6.37-rc5 This package provides support files for the Linux kernel build, e.g. scripts to handle ABI information and for generation of build system meta data. Changes: linux-2.6 (2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1) experimental; urgency=low . * New upstream release candidate . [ Ben Hutchings ] * Attempt to fix FTBFS on various architectures: - [alpha] Do not use -Werror for arch/alpha/kernel - [arm/ixp4xx] Rename FREQ macro to avoid collisions - [mips] Add the necessary parameter to mips_sc_is_activated() Override entries for your package: firmware-linux-free_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional kernel linux-2.6_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1.dsc - source devel linux-base_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional kernel linux-doc-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional doc linux-manual-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional doc linux-patch-debian-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional kernel linux-source-2.6.37_2.6.37~rc5-1~experimental.1_all.deb - optional kernel Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of the override file. It is ok otherwise, so please be patient. New packages are usually added to the override file about once a week. You may have gotten the distribution wrong. You'll get warnings above if files already exist in other distributions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1pqxfj-0005ff...@franck.debian.org
Bug#606589: xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 doesn't upgrade from xen-linux-system-2.6.26-2-xen-amd64
Package: xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 Version: 2.6.32-28 Severity: serious Tags: squeeze When upgrading a fully working server running the Lenny version of Xen, with xen-linux-system-2.6.26-2-xen-amd64 installed, the xen-hypervisor package isn't installed, and xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 either. I believe the fix should be quite simple with a Replaces: dependency added or something similar. Also, the normal behavior in Lenny is that in Grub, the hypervisor is booted first, the option to run the Linux kernel without it being later on the list. It would be nice to have the same order in Squeeze in order to not break things (but that can have a lower priority than fixing the above which is really more annoying...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 depends on: ii linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd6 2.6.32-28 Linux 2.6.32 for 64-bit PCs, Xen d ii xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64 [xen 4.0.1-1The Xen Hypervisor on AMD64 xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 recommends no packages. xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101210074758.8000.91887.report...@buzzig.gplhost.com
