john wendel wrote:
On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a
john wendel wrote:
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
For
Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL
On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
I
Mail Lists lists at sapience.com writes:
On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mike Cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.comwrote:
Mail Lists lists at sapience.com writes:
On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a
Paulo Cavalcanti promac at gmail.com writes:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-December/msg01138.html--
Paulo Roma CavalcantiLCG - UFRJ
Ahh - thank you - there is usually a good reason for these things...
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To
On 12/30/2009 08:07 AM, Mike Cloaked wrote:
Paulo Cavalcanti promac at gmail.com writes:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-December/msg01138.html--
Paulo Roma CavalcantiLCG - UFRJ
Ahh - thank you - there is usually a good reason for these things...
No,
Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
My personal experience with building
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole
On 12/30/2009 07:39 PM, john wendel wrote:
F11 with kernel.org 2.6.32.2 + Nvidia driver working fine here. You
really should learn to build a kernel from sources, once you get the
config file done, the rest is easy.
I've done this way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/CustomKernel
But don't
On 12/30/2009 06:08 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
My personal experience with building 2.6.32.recent is that if they
enhance the video drivers any more we will be running text only. Let
the developers have the holiday off, and hopefully they will have run
2.6.32 on their laptops and be motivated to
On 12/29/2009 07:54 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
How come Fedora is still on 2.6.31? Is .32 held back on purpose or are
there issues merging it?
It took less than a week for .31.9 to be pushed through... but I don't
see .32 in updates-testing and it's been almost a whole month...
Its not
14 matches
Mail list logo
