On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 20:18 -0400, Adam Holland wrote:
> Hi, sorry I'm not a skilled programmer, I just have a historic SGI O2 to
> play around with a bit. If the hardware dies, I won't really have any
> reaspn to stay involved with this port.
Still cool that you have one though!
--
Kip Warner -
Hi, sorry I'm not a skilled programmer, I just have a historic SGI O2 to
play around with a bit. If the hardware dies, I won't really have any
reaspn to stay involved with this port.
-Adam
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA25
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:13:16 +0100
Source: kfreebsd-9
Binary: kfreebsd-source-9.0 kfreebsd-headers-9.0-2 kfreebsd-image-9.0-2-686-smp
kfreebsd-image-9-686-smp kfreebsd-headers-9.0-2-686-smp
kfreebsd-headers-9-686-smp kfree
Your message dated Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:47:09 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#717958: fixed in kfreebsd-9 9.0-10+deb70.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #717958,
regarding kfreebsd-9: CVE-2013-4851: nfsserver applies wrong credentials
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim tha
Your message dated Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:47:09 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#720468: fixed in kfreebsd-9 9.0-10+deb70.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #720468,
regarding kfreebsd-9: CVE-2013-3077: local ip_multicast buffer overflow
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:47:09 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#720475: fixed in kfreebsd-9 9.0-10+deb70.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #720475,
regarding kfreebsd-9: CVE-2013-5209: sctp kernel memory disclosure
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 01/09/13 20:14, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please remove kfreebsd-8 from unstable as discussed in debian-bsd:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2013/08/msg00175.html
Another reason for its removal, is that the 8.x kernel series will not
have upstream security support for the jessie timeframe.
Steven Chamberlain:
> On 01/09/13 18:04, Robert Millan wrote:
>> [...] maybe we should move the modules to /boot like
>> upstream does? And make /lib/modules a symlink or something.
>
> Yes I think so. It already works with grub2 (it resolves the symlink
> for paths used in grub.cfg), and it seem
Steven Chamberlain:
> On 01/09/13 18:09, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Okay, so let's just remove kfreebsd-8 for now, and make D-I kfreebsd-9 only?
>
> Yes that's what I'd suggest for now.
Request just filed. As for D-I, I made it kfreebsd-9 only, but also
added (optional) targets for kfreebsd-10. They
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hello FTP team,
Please remove kfreebsd-8 from unstable as discussed in debian-bsd:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2013/08/msg00175.html
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
On 01/09/13 18:09, Robert Millan wrote:
> Okay, so let's just remove kfreebsd-8 for now, and make D-I kfreebsd-9 only?
Yes that's what I'd suggest for now.
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsu
On 01/09/13 18:04, Robert Millan wrote:
> [...] maybe we should move the modules to /boot like
> upstream does? And make /lib/modules a symlink or something.
Yes I think so. It already works with grub2 (it resolves the symlink
for paths used in grub.cfg), and it seems justified by the FHS too:
h
Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
> On 29/08/13 13:58, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Again, if I don't hear anyone against this, I'll go ahead and:
>>
>> - Upload kfreebsd-10 (with abiname=0) to sid.
>> - Make D-I a kfreebsd-9 / kfreebsd-10 dual boot.
>> - Request removal of kfreebsd-8.
>
> BTW I'm okay with
Steven Chamberlain:
> A few times I've had GRUB unable to boot from ZFS for various reasons.
> Now I prefer to make /boot a separate partition, and also move
> /lib/modules into /boot/, making it a symlink to there. That way
> everything needed to boot the kernel is on plain UFS, but everything
>
Hi,
I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the jessie release:
For kfreebsd-*, I
- test packages on this architecture
This includes running a Desktop (Notebook) System on testing and am
therefore testing the relevant stack
Package: grub-pc
Version: 2.00-18
Severity: grave
Upgrading grub from -15 to -18 causes a immediate boot failure. Grub gets
into rescue mode with "checksum verification failed" and `insmod normal`
fails with the same message. Booting into a live system the zfs imports
just fine and after downgradi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of
that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which
port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an
overview of which of the porters are (still
17 matches
Mail list logo
