On Sunday 30 July 2006 21:00, dann frazier wrote:
> Here's the status of the lkdi rebuilds for 3.1r3.
Now that we are really getting closer, I propose to upload base-installer
to stable (proposed-updates) so it can be autobuilt.
The reason it needs to be updated is that otherwise kernel selection
This is a follow-up to [1] which proposed a plan for the update of D-I
using the latest kernel update for stable in preparation for Sarge r3.
Follow-ups please in principle _only_ to d-release and d-boot and maybe to
one of the CCed lists if relevant for them.
On Friday 21 April 2006 02:01, Fra
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:36:10PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Or, a totally different idea: Why do we (technically) need to
> > rebuild the installer at all? Could we try to avoid that need in
> > future?
> The main reason (AIUI) we want to have a new installer with new kernel
> udebs is that
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:06:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 22:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I thought the consensus here was to add the ABI version to the updated
> > kernels for those arches lacking it, at least i was asking about this
> > for powerpc.
>
> Well, if an ABI h
On Friday 28 April 2006 22:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> I thought the consensus here was to add the ABI version to the updated
> kernels for those arches lacking it, at least i was asking about this
> for powerpc.
Well, if an ABI has been added for the security update in the kernel
packages we will o
On Friday 21 April 2006 10:14, Andreas Barth wrote:
> The question is however: should we try to keep the "old" udebs in
> stable also? Are they not overwritten by the point release? Or should
> we try to change stable so that we have two versions of the udebs in
> stable?
OK. As far as I'm concern
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060430 02:21]:
> The most important reason for a installer kernel update is IMHO to keep
> the installer useful for modern hardware.
That would however mean we're need to go to 2.6.12 or later - and I
think that's not possible. (If someone cluefully enough agre
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060429 12:36]:
> > > Or, a totally different idea: Why do we (technically) need to
> > > rebuild the installer at all? Could we try to avoid that need in
> > > future?
>
> > The main reason (AIUI) we want to have a new installer with new ker
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060429 12:36]:
> > Or, a totally different idea: Why do we (technically) need to
> > rebuild the installer at all? Could we try to avoid that need in
> > future?
> The main reason (AIUI) we want to have a new installer with new kernel
> udebs is that the kernel u
On Saturday 29 April 2006 11:42, Andreas Barth wrote:
> As they come from the same source package, one of them would usually
> still go away (and IMHO we shouldn't break the rule that if the source
> package doesn't build the binary package, the binary needs to go away
> as well). Of course, users
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060428 20:40]:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 11:28, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries
> > in the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need
> > some dak changes, and it's a bit risky
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 11:28, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries
> > in the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need
> > some dak changes, and it's
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:28, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries
> in the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need
> some dak changes, and it's a bit risky, because dak assumes at various
> places that the (pack
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060428 11:29]:
> If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries in
> the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need some
> dak changes, and it's a bit risky, because dak assumes at various places
> that the (pack
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:39:24AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The main problem is going to be testing the new images as it will not be
> > > possible to run an installation and download kernel udebs from s-p-u and
> > > other udebs from stable.
> >
> > The question
Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The main problem is going to be testing the new images as it will not be
> > possible to run an installation and download kernel udebs from s-p-u and
> > other udebs from stable.
>
> The question is however: should we try to keep the "old" udebs in stable
> also? Are the
On Friday 21 April 2006 02:01, Frans Pop wrote:
> In more detail:
> 1) Upload new i386 kernel udebs for both 2.4 and 2.6 to s-p-u (I've
>already prepared a set)
These packages were uploaded 2 days ago and are currently in NEW, so we're
now waiting for:
> 2) Get these acked by SRM so they act
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060421 02:21]:
> 2) Get these acked by SRM so they actually show up in s-p-u; s-p-u already
>has debian-installer sections, I'm not sure if the acceptance queue
>and approval stuff supports udebs though (aj?)
It does - however, you have to wait with uploadi
Now that 3.1r2 is out and we've got kernel updates with ABI change
scheduled for r3, it's time to start thinking about updating the
installer for stable.
Here's a proposal how to deal with this. If there are any weak points in
the plan, feel free to shoot holes in it.
The main thing that need
19 matches
Mail list logo
