On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 10:29 +0100, Marcus Osdoba wrote: > Am 18.01.2012 05:05, schrieb Ben Hutchings: > > On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 03:42 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 00:40 +0100, Marcus Osdoba wrote: > > [...] > >>> Now that I finished with building up > >> [...] > >>> linux-image-3.1.0-1-486_3.1.8-2~bpo60+1_i386.deb > >> > >> This is wrong; modules built for '3.1.0-1-486' in testing/unstable will > >> not be loadable in a backported kernel due to the compiler version > >> change. (I don't believe that gcc 4.4 and 4.6 are at all incompatible, > >> but the module loader does check this.) > > [...] > > > > Hmm... I think it used to, but I don't see any sign that it does any > > more. But let's not test this. > > > Sorry, I didn't get this. I've downgraded the compiler for the > backported kernel to gcc 4.4. > > Thesis: > In general you won't have plain testing-packages if you just use > stable+stable-backports. So when compiling the 3.1.8-modules with the > same stable gcc (4.4) there is no gcc version mismatch within > stable+stable-backports (there is no gcc 4.6...)
Right. But if the ABI number was left at 1, then it would be possible to have a mismatch. > So every additonal kernel module (besides those packaged inside > linux-image) need to be backported with the same gcc version. No, Debian now only packages source for out-of-tree modules. They are built on user systems by dkms or module-assistant. > Forgive me, if I got that completly wrong. > > Anyway, are there any news in the backport upload process? I still use > my own packages, but on the server I feel more comfortable with an > "official" version where more users may file bugs against. I'm waiting for my key to be added, as I've replaced my key since the last time I made backports. Ben. > Thanks for your hard work. > > Marcus > -- Ben Hutchings Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
