On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 18:51 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned you can start committing the changes, but you
> should probably allow a few days for feedback from others.
I've just committed (took a while to figure out how to turn an anonymous
checkout into a named one).
Ian.
--
I
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 13 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > In this case I think adding them only where they are actually used is
>> > preferable. That would mean adding them in relevant files in
>> > linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6/modules/i386/ instead.
>>
>> In this spe
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 18:51 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 13 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > What about retasking the new virtio udebs into virtuali{s,z}ion (or
> > > > just virt) and adding them there?
> > >
> > > That could work, but I suspect it could result in a dependency mess.
>
On Sunday 13 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > What about retasking the new virtio udebs into virtuali{s,z}ion (or
> > > just virt) and adding them there?
> >
> > That could work, but I suspect it could result in a dependency mess.
> > You can either check /lib/modules//modules.dep to see how ba
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 21:11 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > As these modules are only going to be used with the i386 -bigmem
> > > kernel and even only exist there, I wonder if we want them in
> > > kernel-wedge.
> >
> > They will eventually be needed f
On Sunday 13 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > In this case I think adding them only where they are actually used is
> > preferable. That would mean adding them in relevant files in
> > linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6/modules/i386/ instead.
>
> In this specific case I disagree. Xen is going to be add
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What about retasking the new virtio udebs into virtuali{s,z}ion (or
>> just virt) and adding them there?
>
> That could work, but I suspect it could result in a dependency mess. You
> can either check /lib/modules//modules.dep to see how bad it is or
> ju
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> First patch is to kernel wedge and adds the Xen block and net devices
>> (optional since they won't appear in the 486 images) as well as making
>> generic_serial optional in order to allow 686-bigmem kernel ud
On Saturday 12 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > As these modules are only going to be used with the i386 -bigmem
> > kernel and even only exist there, I wonder if we want them in
> > kernel-wedge.
>
> They will eventually be needed for the amd64 kernels too, although
> probably not in time for Le
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 19:25 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > First patch is to kernel wedge and adds the Xen block and net devices
> > (optional since they won't appear in the 486 images) as well as making
> > generic_serial optional in order to allow 686-
On Thursday 10 July 2008, Ian Campbell wrote:
> First patch is to kernel wedge and adds the Xen block and net devices
> (optional since they won't appear in the 486 images) as well as making
> generic_serial optional in order to allow 686-bigmem kernel udebs to be
> built. [kernel-wedge.patch]
! +
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 10:29 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 09:26 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > Good. All patches looks good. If noone objects I'll commit them.
> >
> > I still have a few problems with them. Will reply later t
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 09:26 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Good. All patches looks good. If noone objects I'll commit them.
>
> I still have a few problems with them. Will reply later today.
--
Ian Campbell
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
On Thursday 10 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Good. All patches looks good. If noone objects I'll commit them.
I still have a few problems with them. Will reply later today.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:15 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> r54206 conflicted with base-installer.patch. Updated version attached
-ENOPATCH.
I even managed to dismiss Evolutions "you've used the word attached but
there are no attachments dialog" without thinking about it..
--
Ian Campbell
"You
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:16 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
> Good. All patches looks good. If noone objects I'll commit them.
r54206 conflicted with base-installer.patch. Updated version attached.
It's pretty obviously correct (famous last words?) but I'm just building
it up now to try it.
Ian.
Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:23 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> <...>
>> > --- packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console (revision 54198)
>> > +++ packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:23 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> <...>
> > --- packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console (revision 54198)
> > +++ packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console (working copy)
<...>
> Bad coding style. P
Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<...>
> --- packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console(revision 54198)
> +++ packages/finish-install/finish-install.d/90console(working copy)
> @@ -118,3 +118,25 @@
> /target/etc/event.d/tty1 > /target/etc/event.d/$
Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I belive we should use a xen image flavor for it (as suggested
>> previously by Frans IIRC). If you could do that it would be nice.
>
> One of the principles of the paravirt_ops kernel stuff is that there
> should be no need for a distro to special case
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:35 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is there anything more I can do to make these patches acceptable?
> >
> > I'm sorry I was travelling for the switch over to 2.6.25 -- it looks
> > like that is now resolved?
>
> Yes. Please
Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there anything more I can do to make these patches acceptable?
>
> I'm sorry I was travelling for the switch over to 2.6.25 -- it looks
> like that is now resolved?
Yes. Please refresh your patches and use the lastest kernel-wedge (I
hope Jeremy is ab
Is there anything more I can do to make these patches acceptable?
I'm sorry I was travelling for the switch over to 2.6.25 -- it looks
like that is now resolved?
Ian.
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 08:19 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that beta2 is out the door I'd like to revisit the possibil
23 matches
Mail list logo
