Hello On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:28:35PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:09:29PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Hello > > > > I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the > > maintainer. > > > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Bj�rn Steinbrink wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:35:18 +0000 (UTC) > > > Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I gmane.linux.vserver, skrev Herbert Poetzl: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:40:09AM +0000, Jesper Krogh wrote: > > > > > > I gmane.linux.vserver, skrev Dariush Pietrzak: > > > > > > > > I'd really like to test this vserver thing out, but currently > > > > > > > > it clashes with my policy of only installing things through > > > > > > > > the packages system on my computers. > > > > > > > > > > well, either you start building packages for your > > > > > package system, you rethink your policy, or you > > > > > choose not to test 'this vserver thing' ... > > > > > > > > Sure.. I'll go that way. I'd just like to know if the were available > > > > somewhere, so I could skip kernel compilation. > > > > > > > > > > I tried make-kpkg yesterday with the debian-kernel 2.6.9 source > > > > > > and vserver patch, that actually worked, (in regards to vserver) > > > > > > but failed getting pcmcia/wireless to work. > > > > > > > > > > well, debian source is debian source, linux-vserver > > > > > patches are based on the vanilla kernel not on some > > > > > distro kernel ... > > > > > > > > Ok.. so I'll go for the vanilla kernel in the next try. > > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to have a couple of vservers at my laptop for > > > > > > testing software installations :-) Isn't this a common usage of > > > > > > Vservers? > > > > > > > > > > yes, it is also common practice to avoid debian > > > > > to get a working linux-vserver setup ... > > > > > > > > For any particular reason? > > > > > > Because debian packages are made to work with debian packages. That > > > means that if you use the debian util-vserver package it is best to use > > > their kernel patch and their helper stuff, it won't work too well with > > > non debianized stuff. Problem is: debian stuff is often outdated, f.e. > > > from what i remember debian has an (old) vserver patch for 2.6 (devel), > > > but the tools are kept at 0.30 (stable), thus you can't use the new > > > features (except if the debian maintainers wrote/backported tools...). > > > > I would like to say like this: Debian tend to ship well tested > > and stable versions. The kernel patch for 2.6 kernel was an experiment > > and I actually think it was a bad id�a to add it there. I have got > > many misunderstandings about this version. > > let me ask two questions here, and please don't get me wrong: > > a) _who_ is testing the debian vserver tools/kernel patches?
Debian users, you and I. What I wanted to state is that Debian ship the versions that you find stable (with minor modifications to suite Debian better). I do not want to maintain both the development branch and the stable branch at the same time. > b) _why_ doesn't the maintainer (you) talk a little more with > the developers (enrico, bjoern, myself ...) I have not really had the time lately. I have switched work and no longer do this at my work time. Unfortunatly. Hope you do not mind. There is one package vserver-debiantools that I have created in order to make util-vserver more similar to "upstream" in order to avoid confusion. Hope you do not mind. > > > Also, since some packages have very little in common with the upstream, > > > it's a real pain to fix issues if you don't happen to be the debian > > > maintainer. > > > > Patches are always welcome! > > > > > You should have a look at the list's > > > archives and search for message from/to debian maintainers, maybe that > > > helps understanding why, for linux-vserver, the debianized stuff is not > > > the first choice. > > > > I would like to tell that util-vserver on 2.4 is very well tested. The > > reason why the 2.6 version is not included in Debian is that is is not > > stable (still development as far as I know). > > right, as you can tell from the version ... but neither is 2.6 > (which you can't tell from the version ;) so how comes that > folks show up which _believe_ they have to use outdated debian > tools for 2.6 versions? They think that because I ship the 2.6 kernel patch it must work with the util-vserver tool. I made a mistake, because in the current latest version of util-vserver have problems with /proc and 2.6 kernel. > > > That said, i want to say that i've used debian a long time and i like > > > it, but sometimes their (or a maintainer's, dunno) packaging policies > > > don't fit a project very well. Linux-VServer is such a project as it > > > seems. > > > > Well I do not really see your problem here. If you want to use > > development branch you have to use it from upstream. Stable versions > > is what is intended for release, or do I misunderstand something here? > > I'd say there are _many_ misunderstandings on all sides, and > the folks paying for that are the end-users, which IMHO is > a very bad policy ... my 'solutions' to this are (in order of > preference) > > a) get somebody to maintain stable and devel vserver packages > who keeps in close touch and uses linux-vserver ... > (not necessarily the same person) People are welcome to help me. I will probably maintain the development branch when there is some indication that it is not in alpha state anymore. It might have changed since I looked last time, and that is a few months ago. > b) avoid changes and package the upstream stuff so that the > linux-vserver folks can 'maintain' those packages too ... I try to make them as small as possible, at least for the userspace part. I have to make some changes though in order to make it compatible with LSB, FHS and debian policy. > c) drop the debian packages and linux-vserver 'support' for > now and let debian folks use the upstream stuff, which > has support and is working ... Isn't that what I'm doing. The problem is the kernel patches and the reason for this is the Debian kernel. I can unfortunatly not change that. I try to make as little changes as possible, but I need correct issues that happens with debian systems. Regards, // Ola > best, > Herbert > > > Regards, > > > > // Ola > > > > > Bjoern > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Vserver mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > > > > > > -- > > --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- > > / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ > > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | > > | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > > | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | > > \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > > Vserver mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
