-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:40, Joey Hess wrote:
> Also FWIW, Colin and I discussed making a d-i kernel update checklist,
> and here's my attempt at that. It's not exactly a trivial process..
>
> 1. New kernel deb enters the archive.
[...]
> 15. Get
Sven Luther wrote:
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264
Sven Luther wrote:
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264
Sven Luther wrote:
It's a self-built kernel, but without modification.
I neglected to include a modules listing in the bug report. Here are
those myst likely to be involved:
ide_generic 1472 0
sis551316776 1
hpt366 22788 2
ide_disk 19264
Sven Luther wrote:
I asked because another guy (with a piix chipset though), was claiming that
his chipset was not detected, and thus that dma was not activated.
If he was using 2.4.27 tell him to use 2.4.26 for now. As I've mentioned
in other mails I just fixed 2.4.27, in trunk.
--
Joshua Kwan
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:58:16AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >>>kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
> >>>
> >>>/dev/hda:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >>>/dev/hda:
> >>>Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
> >>>
kowari:~# hdparm -t /dev/hd{a,g}{,}
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.33 MB/sec
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads: 120 MB in 3.02 seconds = 39.74 MB/sec
/dev/hdg: Timing buffere
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 04:01:35PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >>>fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
> >>>was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
> >>>earlier version of the same c
Steve Langasek wrote:
We depend on the experts (the kernel team) for the information we need
in order to make good decisions -- or better, to help *you* make good
decisions.
Based on this thread and other discussions, I understand that the
current 2.4.26 packages are unsuitable for release because
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
> > I wonder what needs to happen to
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
> >
> > I wonder what needs to happen
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
>
> I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision.
> Do other subgroups of Debian have a m
John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4
was new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a
earlier version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:30:27PM +0100, peter green wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sub
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision.
Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this? Maybe we
need a designated person or persons who can
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
[snip]
> > > I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
> > > weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be
> > > build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security
> > > issues.
> >
> > ... not kernel-ima
* Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
> > > Monday.
>
> > I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
> > weekend,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
>
>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Quoting Joey Hess:
> > 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
> > from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
> > (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release.
>
> Why is this necessary ? I'm a bi
Quoting Joey Hess:
> 15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
> from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
> (floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release.
Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit worried that rc1 netinst images d
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
> > Monday.
> I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
> weekend, please make sure you're using this one
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was
new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier
version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78 MB/s
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:10:55PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
> >>with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
> >>30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
* Steve Langasek wrote:
> I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
> Monday.
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be
build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes so
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > It will be 2.6.8.
> > >
> > > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
> > > in the Debian packages?
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ?
I haven't. I pla
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > It will be 2.6.8.
> >
> > If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
> > in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is
> > misleading.
>
> Given t
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > It will be 2.6.8.
>
> If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
> in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is
> misleading.
Given the diff to .1 is tiny and four-digit versi
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for a
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >
> > > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> > > > in sarge. The strongest argumen
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >> Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
> >>that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
> >>sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >> Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
> >>that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
> >>sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> > in sarge.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> > > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd
like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly.
> > Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> > that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> > in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> > by tbm [3].
>
> One thing to bear in mind when making
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> b
dann frazier wrote:
> Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> by tbm [3].
One thing to bear in mind when
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
> that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
> in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
> b
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by tbm [3].
All 2.4 architectures have 2.4.27 kernel images built.
40 matches
Mail list logo
