On 06.02.2009 12:07, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
I was thinking about this for a little while.
Currently we have:
CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE=y
CONFIG_SND_OSSEMUL=y
CONFIG_SND_MIXER_OSS=m
CONFIG_SND_PCM_OSS=m
CONFIG_SND_PCM_OSS_PLUGINS=y
CONFIG_SND_SEQUENCER_OSS=y
this cause the OSS compat modules to be loaded on every system (that
has sound), even thought most people do not require this (pure
drago01 wrote:
Currently we have:
CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE=y
CONFIG_SND_OSSEMUL=y
CONFIG_SND_MIXER_OSS=m
CONFIG_SND_PCM_OSS=m
CONFIG_SND_PCM_OSS_PLUGINS=y
CONFIG_SND_SEQUENCER_OSS=y
this cause the OSS compat modules to be loaded on every system (that
has sound), even thought most people do not
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
Yes -- all that have kernel.i686 installed now would get the new
kernel.i686 later (the one with PAE). But the latter will not boot on
all machines where the curret kernel.i686 works. If there is no
kernel.i686 (because it is named
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
Hi Dave,
I was thinking about this for a little while.
Can't we do this
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 06:07:13AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and on a CPU without PAE, that means they can't boot any more.
In that situation they need to go 'kernel'(i686) to 'kernel'(i586)
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and on a CPU without PAE, that means they can't boot any more.
Part of the problem with that idea is that the Pentium M laptops without PAE
aren't that old. This might upset quite a few people.
Right -- and that's a good point to keep in mind. IMO we shouldn't
break *any* systems when we do this change.
Given the other information coming through
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Prarit Bhargava pra...@redhat.com wrote:
Part of the problem with that idea is that the Pentium M laptops without
PAE
aren't that old. This might upset quite a few people.
Right -- and that's a good point to keep in mind. IMO we shouldn't break
*any*
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:34:04PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Given the other information coming through (about dynamic kernel PAE
enable), should we really being doing this right now?
it's vaporware.
Why not wait for the dynamic PAE stuff to settle upstream and then make
the
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:38:56PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
dynamic PAE ?
Uh -- I can see how that is confusing :) Sorry, let me make another
attempt at that.
What I should have said was that there are patches floating around to
make PAE dynamically selectable --
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:34:04PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Given the other information coming through (about dynamic kernel PAE
enable), should we really being doing this right now?
it's vaporware.
Why not wait for the dynamic PAE stuff to settle upstream
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:29 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and
Hans de Goede wrote:
I like it, +1, but others might disagree, I'm sure someone can dig up
some old app which still needs it :) But that is going to be the
exception to the rule that oss support is no longer needed.
'cat /dev/urandom /dev/dsp' ;-) (which I also use as a cheap test if
my
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:58 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:44:28PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
?? We haven't shipped a UP x86 kernel in about 3 years.
Er...smp alternatives counts to me as UP. Shame there's no equiv. for
PAE.
oh I see what you were saying.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:01:43PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
Not quite though from what I hear (trying to reconcile what Thorsten
said). But perhaps he was solely complaining that most people would run
PAE and thus have to type kmod-crud-PAE.
The kmod thing is a non-argument afaics.
If
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:17AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
Yes -- all that have kernel.i686 installed now would get the new
kernel.i686 later (the one with PAE). But the latter will not boot on
all machines where the curret
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Chris Lalancette (clala...@redhat.com) said:
Do we know if anaconda is going to change
to choose kernel-PAE for any machine with the PAE flag, regardless of the
amount
of memory?
That's the plan - the patch should be pretty trivial.
Yep, I expect it to be. I just
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics). And it would make documentation a whole lot easier,
making Fedora
On 06.02.2009 20:55, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics). And it would make
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
I don't see how this is a problem.
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics).
Well, the problem is that you'd have to define a
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:11:37PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
I don't see how this is a problem.
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 18:44 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
So my proposal is: Disable this options in rawhide (and those F11) and
add a note to the release notes that people can use padsp/aoss to make
oss apps working.
Completely agree.
As I pointed out on IRC, it's just a modprobe rule
24 matches
Mail list logo
