On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:55:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Horms, > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:34:34PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > I have been looking into the Blade1500 clock chip problem on request > > from Dave Miller. It seems that while we have a solution in the pipeline > > for 2.4.27, that is getting kernel-image-sparc 2.4.27-9 into testing and > > d-i once gluck comes back, > > No, this is certainly not in the cards; kernel-image-sparc 2.4.27-9 > build-depends on kernel-tree-2.4.27-9, which is not in testing and can't be > updated without also updating kernel-image packages for all those > architectures that use kernel-source without build-depending on > kernel-tree-2.4.27-x. Getting this fix in for 2.4 on sparc would mean > destabilizing d-i on a number of unrelated archs (m68k, arm, mips).
I must say that while I understand the reasons for this, I find it highly frustrating that what is clearly a sparc-specific fix has to update all the other architectures as well, making it to hard for sarge. > > the same cannot be said for 2.6.8. > > Actually, 2.6.8 is in much better shape for being updated, because after the > last accidental acceptance of kernel-source-2.6.8 into testing, powerpc and > m68k have been fixed up so that it's now possible to update > kernel-source-2.6.8 in testing without disturbing the kernel-image packages, > and to update kernel-image packages on one arch without disturbing the > other. So I'm in favor of getting a kernel-image-2.6.8-sparc update into > sarge to fix 288180; it's up to Joey to decide whether this is really going > to happen, though, and to set limits on what other changes are allowed in > with it. (For instance, I personally think that doing an ABI update at the > same time and getting the security fixes in is ok, but that rearranging the > set of modules being built is not ok.) > > > The current d-i kernel image is linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 0.05. > > I am not sure which version of kernel-source this is based on, > > as a quick glance of the .dsc seems to indicate that the > > source dependancy is not versioned. However it too seems > > to be missing "m5823" and thus seems to not have the patch. > > Yes, and unfortunately Josh's changelog entry is exceedingly vague; but from > the date, it would have to have been built against k-i-2.6.8-sparc 2.6.8-6 > AFAICT. > > > From the previous messaage I understand that there is some likely > > hood of 2.6.8 being updated for sparc because of #288180. > > It seems like that would be a good chance to get this patch in. > > Yah, agreed. Ok, so at least people with Blade's with this chip will be able to use 2.6. Its probably the recommended kernel for sarge on sparc anyway. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
