>>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>>
>>Sorry to bump an old thread
>>
>>Please consider moving to Clang 3.8 or 4.0 as the LLVM front end for
>>the platform.
>>
>>Clang 3.5 and 3.6 are no longer maintained. The bugs we are
>>discovering and reporting are being closed
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:27:49PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
>> like a normal jessi
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:27:49PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> > other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> > similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> > like a normal j
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
>
> * backports kernel
> *
Hi Jeffrey,
On 12 July 2016 at 09:28, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> I think it would benefit more than Skylake users. The last few
> processors are missing support. Below is from a Core i5-5300U (5th
> gen) and a 3.19.0-64-generic kernel.
>
> **
>
> $ dmesg | egrep -i '(error|failed)'
> ...
>
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
>
> * backports kernel
> *
Philipp Kern (2016-07-10):
> On 2016-07-04 18:08, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >>How would we keep that working given that backports keeps changing?
> >Backports changing isn't an issue AFAICT if we're only publishing a
> >netinst image which has all the kernel bits (kernel udebs), as opposed
> >to ne
Hi,
On 2016-07-04 18:08, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
How would we keep that working given that backports keeps changing?
Backports changing isn't an issue AFAICT if we're only publishing a
netinst image which has all the kernel bits (kernel udebs), as opposed
to netboot.
Or are you thinking of othe
On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 23:17 -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 18:38, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > > Also, I imagine this might one day be necessary,
> > > particularly if tracking backported linux-src due to ABI changes
> > > between kernels, eg: if the out-of-tree drivers in
On 4 July 2016 at 18:38, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 16:01 -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
>> So for radeon hardware enablement, there is 1) the proprietary driver
>
> fglrx is dead upstream and removed from unstable. (It's still in
> jessie-backports, but shoul
On 5 July 2016 at 08:40, Samuel Henrique wrote:
>
> 2016-07-05 7:43 GMT-03:00 Jose R R :
>>
>> We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
>> arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
>> and we don't really have anything for people who want to
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:24:03PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2016, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> > > other folks - it might be useful to do a "jess
On Thu, 07 Jul 2016, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> > other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> > similarly to what we did in the etch days.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie re
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:18:24PM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Problem 2: CPU's built-in graphics work badly.
> [...] Skylake
> graphics probably need some yet unreleased kernel version.
Skylake != Skylake
I have another Skylake system which works ok with 4.6 kernel and
xorg-server-video-intel
On 07/05/2016 07:43 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
Steve,
On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
of very recent amd64 machines too.
ppc64el port would take b
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 08:55:39AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> ACK - I'm not wedded to the name in the slightest. It's more a
> proposal of what we're going to do.
ok, cool.
> >maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit?
> Maybe that fits, but it's horrid name.
I don't think it's tha
On Wed, 2016-07-06 at 08:55 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:33:38AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
[...]
> > I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used
> >that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel,
> >not a moving target
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:33:38AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is
>> >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
>> God, no - really *not* tha
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is
> >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
> God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the
> kernel in backports at th
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 06:11:24PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring
>> it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding
>> that there are a f
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
>Steve,
>
>On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>>of very recent amd64 machines too.
>
>ppc64el port would take benefit from it also, since, there were man
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:37:06PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>On Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 14:01:03 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
>> the Sk
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to w
Steve,
On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
of very recent amd64 machines too.
ppc64el port would take benefit from it also, since, there were many new
kernel features that made linux after 3.16.
Holger Levsen (2016-07-05):
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> > I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring
> > it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding
> > that there are a fair number of issues reported
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring
> it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding
> that there are a fair number of issues reported with 4.5.x and 4.6.x
> on various mai
On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 08:25 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Would it be possible/reasonable (at least for stretch) to have the
> installer detect this and ask "your hardware appears to be too new for
> this release, would you like to enable -backports?"
It might be, but it's going to be hard t
2016-07-05 7:43 GMT-03:00 Jose R R :
> > Why would you call it "Jessie + 1/2"? Wouldn't it be a better idea
> Well IBM set a precedent for that: OS/2.
> Accordingly, Jessie BP could be called Jessie/2 ;-)
Well, that would be a half Jessie, not Jessie and a half, right? We could
use 3Jessie/2 o
Hi Steve,
On Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 14:01:03 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> thinking of sup
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>
> On 07/04/2016 03:01 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> > other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> > similarly to what we did in the etch days.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:52:37AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:07 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
> > arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
> > and we don't really have an
On 07/04/2016 03:01 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a
On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:07 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > > A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> > > of very recent amd64 machines too,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>>>
>>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>
>Yes, it's a project I'm already working on ;-) Is this project a
>candidate for a new Debian Team?
I guess so, yes. :-)
>> 2. Does it have to be called "jessi
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> > of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> > the Skylake platform. Th
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:12:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Steve McIntyre (2016-07-04):
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's
On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 08:25 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Have you reported this bug (with the full warnings)? If not, please
> do so.
I haven't. If I got a response at all to "My monitor doesn't work" it
looks to me it would be: compile latest source with instrumentation
turned on and send
Would it be possible/reasonable (at least for stretch) to have the
installer detect this and ask "your hardware appears to be too new for
this release, would you like to enable -backports?"
On 04/07/16 23:38, Ben Hutchings wrote:
As I understand it, xserver-xorg-video-modesetting should be use
On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 16:01 -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> > > * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
> >
> > You know there are patches around for that.
> >
> > > * X drivers
> >
> > I don't see backports for them.
>
> libdrm2: 2.4.68-1~bpo8+1
> libgl1-mesa-.*: 11.1.3-1~bpo8+1
> xserve
On 4 July 2016 at 09:12, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve McIntyre (2016-07-04):
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* ju
On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days.
As I recall, that added extra packages
(Please keep me cc'd.)
Philipp Kern (2016-07-04):
> On 2016-07-04 15:12, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >Steve McIntyre (2016-07-04):
> >>There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> >>other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> >>similarly to what w
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jes
On 2016-07-04 15:12, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steve McIntyre (2016-07-04):
There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
like a normal jess
Hi,
Steve McIntyre (2016-07-04):
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key upd
Hey folks,
There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
* backports kernel
* r
47 matches
Mail list logo
