Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I like the idea while I keep in my mind that Joey had some reasons to
>> dislike the udeb building from kernel source. I don't remember which
>
> He dislikes it, because he then will have less control over the .udeb content.
> But the one archive-per-kern
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:27:10AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Yeah. You know we stopped doing this kind of stuff for the kernel
> >> > package over
> >> > a year ago, and probably for a reason, don't you think ?
> >>
> >> We stopped doing th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yeah. You know we stopped doing this kind of stuff for the kernel package
>> > over
>> > a year ago, and probably for a reason, don't you think ?
>>
>> We stopped doing that for kernel packages. The problem here is that,
>> without doing that the bin
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:05:24AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Maybe the installer kernel would have the release version on the
> >> package name and then it wouldn't be remove from the suite until the
> >> next version. e.g:
> >>
> >> - linux-i
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe the installer kernel would have the release version on the
>> package name and then it wouldn't be remove from the suite until the
>> next version. e.g:
>>
>> - linux-image-d-i-4.0-rc1
>
> So you prefer ugly hacked solution over cleant and neat on
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:37:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >> The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all
> >> >> those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this
> >> >> won't be true... that can be us
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all
>> >> those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this
>> >> won't be true... that can be used if it stay just as a sid resource...
>> >
>> > Since the problem of movi
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:11:08PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > - the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would b
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > - the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be one
>> > by
>> > kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i im
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be one by
> > kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i images alive even when
> > new kernel versions are
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
>> devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
>> another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
>> team lives easier. One wouldn't affect the othe
Op 03-11-2006 om 03:03 schreef Frans Pop:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
> > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
>
> I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:24:28PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Yeah, but adding them to the image is not always the best solution, loading
> > afterward may be a better way.
> >
> > Also, there may be another future for .udebs out there than just for d-i
> > use,
> > altough i know the d-i f
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:39:50AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 23:51, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Bah, i can commit to debian-cd, and now that i know about this fact, if
> > ever a .udeb i asked is out there, i will naturally add it to the
> > blacklist.
>
> No, sorry that was
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 04 November 2006 01:24, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
>> devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
>> another group of packages would make both worlds happy and m
On Saturday 04 November 2006 01:24, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
> devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
> another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
> team lives easier. One wouldn't a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, it's trivial but the team need to be aware of those
>> modifications otherwise it can take a while to discover useless udebs
>> that are being include on the image. Currently there's no automatic CD
>> testing tool to try to figure those mistakes ou
On Friday 03 November 2006 23:51, Sven Luther wrote:
> Bah, i can commit to debian-cd, and now that i know about this fact, if
> ever a .udeb i asked is out there, i will naturally add it to the
> blacklist.
No, sorry that was not the intention. Having everybody committing
uncoordinated changes t
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:04:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this.
> >> > Adding a
> >> > .udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded
> >> > by d-i,
>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this.
>> > Adding a
>> > .udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded by
>> > d-i,
>> > can hardly have any influence on d-i.
>>
>> Not exactly. When we're build
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:34:53PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> >> On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug repor
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
>> > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
>
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:54:39AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 11:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ah, i thought there was some automatic tool, or whatever, so much for
> > me, next time i will make sure to CC debian-boot or something, that
>
> Please discuss it on the list _bef
On Friday 03 November 2006 11:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ah, i thought there was some automatic tool, or whatever, so much for
> me, next time i will make sure to CC debian-boot or something, that
Please discuss it on the list _before_ you file a bug report.
> said i was kill-filled by most of you
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 08:29, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract
> > your attention. At least this is how i understood the issue.
>
> No, it is not. I don't get some kind of
On Friday 03 November 2006 08:29, Sven Luther wrote:
> I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract
> your attention. At least this is how i understood the issue.
No, it is not. I don't get some kind of automatic notification by email
for bugs tagged d-i.
> Or don't yo
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
> > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
>
> I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked,
On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
> comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be
discussed on the debian-boot list first, esp
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> I am glad you took this to the debian-boot mailing list as Sven Luther,
> who currently is not even a member of the Debian Installer team, filed
> this request without discussing it on the debian-boot list first.
> As such, this is an "un
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:54:25PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> > No, is not luck, just that all udebs which could be used are added to
> > the pool of binaries which need symbols, AFAICT:
>
> No, the code you qouted is specific to building floppy disk images.
>
> As I said be
Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> No, is not luck, just that all udebs which could be used are added to
> the pool of binaries which need symbols, AFAICT:
No, the code you qouted is specific to building floppy disk images.
As I said before, once d-i has access to the installation media, it
loads the full li
Hello Daniel,
I am glad you took this to the debian-boot mailing list as Sven Luther,
who currently is not even a member of the Debian Installer team, filed
this request without discussing it on the debian-boot list first.
As such, this is an "unauthorized" request.
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 2
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> If they did that, you could just wget a full GDB binary. It doesn't
> need anything else in the package besides the executable. But I don't
> think d-i does what you describe (since I tried to use this approach
> for strace recently, and there were missing symbols in li
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > My impression is that d-i loads the full libraries later on, or something
> > such.
>
> AFAIK, this never happens. The reduction is done mainly for the thing
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
> be very useful for developers. This would come in handy to debug various bugs
> which are otherwise hard to track, like crashes in the graphical installer,
>
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
> libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
> reduction, because they are not needed by the .udebs in the image, but they
> are needed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Sven Luther wrote:
>>> My impression is that d-i loads the full libraries later on, or something
>>> such.
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
>> libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
>> reduction, b
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:36:54AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, i am not entirely sure how d-i handles the case at hand here, where
> > libraries are part of the actual image, but symbols are removed during
> > reduction, bec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:05:26AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>>> A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
>>> be very useful
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:05:26AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > A version of gdb as .udeb, which could easily be loaded inside the d-i would
> > be very useful for developers. This would come in handy to debug various
> > bugs
>
41 matches
Mail list logo
