Is there anything more I can do to make these patches acceptable? I'm sorry I was travelling for the switch over to 2.6.25 -- it looks like that is now resolved?
Ian. On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 08:19 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > Now that beta2 is out the door I'd like to revisit the possibility of > having an additional 686-bigmem netboot image suitable for use with Xen. > Some previous threads on the subject are: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2008/05/msg01021.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2008/04/msg01016.html > (I'm sure there a few others hidden away in sub-threads...) > > First patch is to kernel wedge and adds the Xen block and net devices > (optional since they won't appear in the 486 images) as well as making > generic_serial optional in order to allow 686-bigmem kernel udebs to be > built. [kernel-wedge.patch] > > Second patch is to linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6 and simply adds the > 686-bigmem flavour kernels. [linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6.patch] > > Third patch is to base-installer and causes the 686-bigmem kernel to be > installed into the new system iff the installer is also running a bigmem > kernel. This has been filed as #480054 and I'll send an update there > too. [base-installer.patch] > > Final patch is the the installer itself to cause a 686-bigmem netboot > image to be built. [installer.patch] > > I have one additional patch to finish-install/finish-install.d/90console > which enables getty on hvc0 under Xen. Although it works I think can be > done better. I'll send that one later. > > The kernel and base-installer patches are safe to apply right away and > I'd really appreciate the kernel one especially being included in the > next upload of those udebs. The installer.patch needs to wait until you > are ready to switch to 2.6.25 for the installer generally. > > Cheers, > Ian. -- Ian Campbell The important thing is not to stop questioning. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
