On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 22:14:00 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> My intent in _this_ thread was to get a discussion among
> debian-ports.org users started for best practices of how
> to communicate with package maintainers in Debian. Sorry
> for being unclear there. I had hoped for hints ☺ since I
e you referring to?
>
> The subject of this thread (before you shortened it) was "maintainer
> communication (was Re: Debian kernel regression, was Re: Modernizing a
> Macintosh LC III)".
>
> That discussion covered both the usefulness of the serial console (i.e.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Finn Thain dixit:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >
> > > Finn Thain dixit:
> > >
> > > > Why is CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG to be disabled?
> > >
> > > See the discussion in the thread before this message.
> >
> > I've seen no di
Michael Banck dixit:
>I am not sure which thread you are meaning, and in general, I think
>discussing random Linux kernel config options on -ports is off-topic.
Indeed, that wasn’t the intent of this thread. I’ve continued
that particular discussion on debian-68k.
My intent in _this_ thread was
Finn Thain dixit:
>I've seen no discussion of this on debian-68k or linux-m68k. What
>discussion are you referring to?
Oh right, that was a Cc-list conversation including Geert.
Sorry.
Anyway, the intent of the thread on d-ports@l.d.o was
something else. Let’s continue this on d-68k instead.
>T
you referring to?
The subject of this thread (before you shortened it) was "maintainer
communication (was Re: Debian kernel regression, was Re: Modernizing a
Macintosh LC III)".
That discussion covered both the usefulness of the serial console (i.e.
CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG) and
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 04:47:30PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Finn Thain dixit:
>
> >Why is CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG to be disabled? And why was
>
> See the discussion in the thread before this message.
I am not sure which thread you are meaning, and in general, I think
discussing rand
Finn Thain dixit:
>Why is CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG to be disabled? And why was
See the discussion in the thread before this message.
>CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK disabled?
It was never enabled. And that’s what you get when you let
a BSD guy whose Linux experience dates back to 2.0.3[3-6]
(and some 2.4.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK=y and CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG=n
Why is CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG to be disabled? And why was
CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK disabled?
> I think we need to file bugs in the BTS for each of these instances in
> the future, instead of trying
Dixi quod…
>Hi $maintainer,
>
>can we still get CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK=y and
>CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG=n into 3.12 before it hits unstable?
This was, of course, not integrated into src:linux before the
3.12.6-1 upload. (Which by the way autobuilt, meaning we have
build logs ☻ instead of me building i
10 matches
Mail list logo
