On 26.09.2012 05:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 09/25/2012 03:09 PM, Seth Goldberg wrote:
Is it possible that debian mismerged some changes from 2.00?
no, i don't think so. the tarball that debian's 2.00-5 package i used
has this sha1 sum:
274d91e96b56a5b9dd0a07accff69dbb6dfb596b
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:30:45AM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
AFAIR it has an endianness bug in tftp code (which was mainly tested on
ppc). Please try bzr.
Yes, that just occurred to me too. :-) I'll backport that patch,
thanks.
(Do we have a 2.01 plan of any kind
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:30:45AM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
AFAIR it has an endianness bug in tftp code (which was mainly tested on
ppc). Please try bzr.
Nifty. So endianess bugs can happen both ways. And here I thought us
big endian users were always the ones
Hi,
Is it possible that debian mismerged some changes from 2.00? There is code
in tftp.c that stalls TFTP responses if = 50 packets are queued by the
network driver. That packet count is increased by one each time
grub_net_put_packet is called and decreased by one each time
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:09:16PM -0700, Seth Goldberg wrote:
Is it possible that debian mismerged some changes from 2.00?
It would have been extremely hard to do that by mistake, and I'm quite
confident that I didn't. All our patches are done by explicit *.patch
files in the debian/patches/
On 09/25/2012 03:09 PM, Seth Goldberg wrote:
Is it possible that debian mismerged some changes from 2.00?
no, i don't think so. the tarball that debian's 2.00-5 package i used
has this sha1 sum:
274d91e96b56a5b9dd0a07accff69dbb6dfb596b ../grub2_2.00.orig.tar.xz
which is the same as the
