On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 11:56 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
This works fine, but means that, if we upgrade module-init-tools and
there is a binary format change, then the system will be slow booting
before depmod has been re-run again. I'm thinking about just doing a
depmod
Jon Masters (j...@redhat.com) said:
This works fine, but means that, if we upgrade module-init-tools and
there is a binary format change, then the system will be slow booting
before depmod has been re-run again. I'm thinking about just doing a
depmod -a on upgrade in such cases in the
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 09:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jon Masters (j...@redhat.com) said:
This works fine, but means that, if we upgrade module-init-tools and
there is a binary format change, then the system will be slow booting
before depmod has been re-run again. I'm thinking about
Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 18:19 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 03:47 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
I'm considering pushing an update to F-9 since v3.5+ is so much faster
than previous releases - and it impacts boot time, but I have to admit
that I was more
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Looking at the generated config files, the biggest difference
seems to be that kernel-PAE enables Xen and all it's related
Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Two quick questions Dave.
1. This is for F11?
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Why kill the configs, instead of just changing the spec settings?
@@ -1477,7 +1481,9 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot
cd linux-%{kversion}.%{_target_cpu}
%if %{with_debug}
+%ifnarch i686
BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image debug
+%endif
%if
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:11:40PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Looking at the generated config files, the
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:22:55PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Two quick questions Dave.
1. This is for F11?
yes
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
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 12:23:07PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Why kill the configs, instead of just changing the spec settings?
@@ -1477,7 +1481,9 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot
cd linux-%{kversion}.%{_target_cpu}
%if
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:11 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
This should prove interesting for GEM, as Intel still haven't
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote:
Or you could take my advice of many moons ago now and find less cockamamy
ways to implement this. ;-)
By what? Rewriting gcc?
Only a wee little bit. ;-) Seriously, -pg is eight kinds of wrong, and not
even what you really want anyway.
Steven Rostedt rostedt-nx8x9ylhiw1afugrpc6...@public.gmane.org writes:
[...]
But with this on, you can enable kernel function tracing at runtime. And
this is a very powerful tool. This might be something to discuss, where we
may sacrifice a bit of power for the ability of dynamic tracing.
On 05.02.2009 21:29, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:22:55PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can,
It'd be nice to get a definite answer from the anaconda/yum crowd.
otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's
14 matches
Mail list logo
