On May 26, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Absolutely not acceptable. Out-of-tree modules must not hold up fixes
to the kernel. It was bad enough when their build failures were
blocking each other in linux-modules-extra-2.6.
So how much delay would be acceptable? One day? Twelve
On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 13:28 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On May 26, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Absolutely not acceptable. Out-of-tree modules must not hold up fixes
to the kernel. It was bad enough when their build failures were
blocking each other in
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com wrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Aron Xu wrote:
What I can think of is to do the trick in d-i, since it already has
the ability to retrieve and load udeb on the fly, and even prompt
users for missing firmware.
Maybe even
On May 25, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Aron Xu wrote:
just use DKMS to build OOT modules at
image generation time? Seems to be a good idea.
If setting up a kernel-build-system on one of the
Debian GNU/Linux servers isn't an option, then this
would be a second best..
Then it will be up to the user
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 05:16:39PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Also, there are questions as to whether it would be legal.
Legal as in CDDL clashes with GPL you mean?
Binaries of ZFS linked against the Linux kernel would be licensed under
On May 25, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
Please show that CDDL does not impose additional restrictions over
GPL-2.
Since you seem to have already settled the case once and for
all and are so sure about this, how about you prove your point?
It really doesn't matter who proves there
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 17:53 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Quoting from the report of our 2009 meeting,
20091015123106.ga16...@kyllikki.org:
out of tree modules
---
After a somewhat involved discussion taking into
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Quoting from the report of our 2009 meeting,
20091015123106.ga16...@kyllikki.org:
out of tree modules
---
After a somewhat involved discussion taking into account the FTP
masters extreme irritation about trying to match
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Quoting from the report of our 2009 meeting,
20091015123106.ga16...@kyllikki.org:
out of tree modules
---
After a somewhat involved discussion
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com wrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Aron Xu wrote:
and help d-i people to handle the brokenness
if a change in kernel makes the OOT module does not build
This should only happen when a new major version of the kernel comes
On May 24, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Aron Xu wrote:
and help d-i people to handle the brokenness
if a change in kernel makes the OOT module does not build
This should only happen when a new major version of the kernel comes
out, which means it should only happen in unstable..
And we could make it so
On May 24, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Aron Xu wrote:
What I can think of is to do the trick in d-i, since it already has
the ability to retrieve and load udeb on the fly, and even prompt
users for missing firmware.
Maybe even build them using dkms? I saw that you can make d-i build
all packages...
Hi,
Turbo proposed a few patches to add ZFSonLinux support to d-i. Using
'?' to mark some components as optional happens in several other
places, but I'm worried about using that for kernel modules[1].
1.
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 15:05 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[...]
I'm also not sure how kernel maintainers see (new) OOT modules in the
archive (AFAIUI the general feeling is: there should be no OOT
modules, period; but I might be misremembering things, I don't follow
kernel things closely
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Linux has plenty of fine filesystems to choose from already, so this is
not a must-have.
Ohhh, ouch! But I'm not going to bite... :)
Also, there are questions as to whether it would be legal.
Legal as in CDDL clashes with GPL you mean?
I've
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 05:16:39PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Linux has plenty of fine filesystems to choose from already, so this is
not a must-have.
Ohhh, ouch! But I'm not going to bite... :)
Also, there are questions as to
16 matches
Mail list logo
