On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Sorry for not getting back to you about this earlier.
>
> On 7/7/19 3:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > [...]
> > > No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
> > >
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 19:25 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [CC += ftpmaster]
>
> On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 17:49 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an
> > > exception for
[CC += ftpmaster]
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 17:49 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> [...]
> > We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an
> > exception for the arch:all binaries from src:linux. When the next
> > ABI bump inÂ
On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
[...]
> We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an exception
> for the arch:all binaries from src:linux. When the next ABI bump in
> unstable happens, feel free to let me know, so that I can check if it
> works as
Hi Ben,
Sorry for not getting back to you about this earlier.
On 7/7/19 3:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
[...]
No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
=
The release of buster also means the
> "Ben" == Ben Hutchings writes:
Ben> On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Ben> [...]
>> No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
>> =
>>
>> The release of buster also means the bullseye release cycle
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
[...]
> No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
> =
>
> The release of buster also means the bullseye release cycle is about to begin.
> From now on, we will no longer allow binaries uploaded by
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 04, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other
newer
things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel
Sorry for the long mail, but i believe there is something important all the
way done, so if you cannot be bothered to read it all; please go down to the
point marked *IMPORTANT*.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:05:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
You have been harranguing the ftp team to approve new
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:58:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
well, the kernel is definitly about the same level as the toolchain and
standard/base - changes can have very easily impact on the installer,
and it is not an option to remove the package if it is broken.
Nope, still it is more in
* Sven Luther
| I believe it has also an influence on the place where the source package is
| ohold (alioth svn repo over whatever strange stuff ubuntu uses), and they said
| we should use their system.
yeah, git, really strange stuff in the world of Linux kernel
development. Available from
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Sven Luther
| I believe it has also an influence on the place where the source package is
| ohold (alioth svn repo over whatever strange stuff ubuntu uses), and they
said
| we should use their system.
yeah, git, really
also sprach Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.04.0043 +0100]:
Why don't we use RHEL's kernel, or collaborate with them to maintain a
stable kernel tree, or something?
I doubt RH has the same concept of stability as we do, and I surely
don't want a plethora of potentially untested or buggy
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
if Ubuntu shows up as a candidate, I would like to add Progeny, Linspire,
Xandros, DCC Alliance Fan Club and also other Debian
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:51:17PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
snipp
Packaging at least -rc kernels for unstable might be a good idea for
Debian too. That would provide more testing coverage for -rc releases,
and this is what upstream needs the most.
the -rc kernels are build in experimental,
* Gabor Gombas wrote:
Packaging at least -rc kernels for unstable might be a good idea for
Debian too. That would provide more testing coverage for -rc releases,
and this is what upstream needs the most.
We already had some -rc releases in experimental for 2.6.14 and
2.6.15.
Norbert
--
To
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
the -rc kernels are build in experimental, staging area for unstable
and without any potential d-i breakage.
Ah, nice, I did not notice it. Perhaps it should get some more publicity
to attract more testers :-)
Gabor
--
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:11:00PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
For the installer, sure, but the generation of the d-i kernel .udebs is only
marginally of their relevance, and furthermore they don't want the
responsability associated with it, and as proof i can show you that
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
N-110 = Mon 7 Aug 06: freeze base,
Hi,
thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
[re-arranged the quote]
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 22:03]:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
[...]
We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
this plan, since there are about
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
Yeah, i was already chidded (?) that
(forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2
month.
2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
Why do you put the kernel together
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
(forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:26:02PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
[...]
We will have a kernel which is
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed. The d-i team usually says no outright to any kind of proposal
of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
implementation which convinces them :)
Bullshit.
We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why we
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed. The d-i team usually says no outright to any kind of proposal
of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
implementation which convinces them :)
Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed. The d-i team usually says no outright to any kind of proposal of
this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be informed about the
possibility though.
Cite message-ids or irc logs
Sven Luther wrote:
And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back in
april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
with regard to kernels during these past months.
Pedantically speaking, fjp made no d-i release decisions last April.
If
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current
linux-2.6 common package
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:09:18PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back
in
april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
with regard to kernels during these past months.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:13:37AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
that works out just fine for ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:04:39PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed. The d-i team usually says no outright to any kind of proposal of
this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be informed
On Jan 04, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
lack the manpower to backport for years fixes and new features
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
[...]
We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:24:04 +0100
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Without the current method sucks comments please; saying I
think the current situation could be improved by... is much more
likely to get positive reactions.)
This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 04, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
lack the manpower
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:28:15PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
things newer kernels might require.
Notice that Linus recently expressed on LKML that udev and other userland
breakage on kernel upgrade is not to
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 04, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other
newer
things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
But yes, udev is the problematic case, altough i run 2.6.14 with sarge udev
and it works.
AFAIK it should work with the default ruleset. It breaks only with
certain custom rules due to a bug in the libsysfs version used by udev.
So,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/2006 10:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jan 04, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:27:25PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
(forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
with this
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
if Ubuntu shows up as a candidate, I would like to add Progeny, Linspire,
Xandros, DCC Alliance
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:34:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
if Ubuntu shows up as a
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 23:02]:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
the other hand side, the difference is only one week - and if nothing is
broken by that, we can freeze the kernel at N-110 also.
i think comparing the kernel with the toolchain
47 matches
Mail list logo
