On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:57:45PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> Cons:
> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
> jh> - It becomes impossible to inclu
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:04:30AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > I've also been told that many module packages aren't built the Debian
> > way with a .dsc file that can be used as basis for dpkg-buildpackage
> > or similar. This makes the problem more difficult.
>
>
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 04:09:42PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > How big is the chance that we will have another ABI change during
> > sarge's lifetime (100%?). So it can't hurd to figure out the problems
> > with that now independently of our decision in this matter..
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:04:30AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I've also been told that many module packages aren't built the Debian
> way with a .dsc file that can be used as basis for dpkg-buildpackage
> or similar. This makes the problem more difficult.
The kernel module packages we know o
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We'd need at least a list of module packages that we need to
> > recompile when a kernel update changes the ABI and all the
> > modules become void.
> >
> > This also means that we need to be able to rebuild modules from
> > their corresponding source package.
>
> Notice th
Joey Hess wrote:
Suppose that sarge releases and you buy a copy of the official sarge
businesscard CD image for your wallet. Or you burn a set of floppies.
Now a security fix comes out, the kernel ABI is changed, and you try to
install using your old official sarge installation media. At this point
dann frazier wrote:
> It seems to me that the best use of everyone's time would be for the
> kernel team to have an agreement with the security team that we will
> restrict changes to our 2.4.27/2.6.8 kernels in such a way that they can
> start with our unstable packages for sarge updates (with may
dann frazier wrote:
> The ABI/security discussions have left me with a question - at what
> point does security maintenance of our kernels transition from the
> debian-kernel/testing security teams to the Debian security team, and
> how will we interact with one another? I assume there will be som
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:22:32PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > I'm trying to decide what I want to do about the ia64 kernel ABI. I
> > rev'd it from -2 (currently in sarge) to -3 to turn off PREEMPT
> > (prevents at least one user trigg
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:36:52 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Right. My suggestion doesn't address d-i issues. We have two
>> options, it seems; the modules that are downloaded from a debian mirror
>> can either be versioned to support multiple ABIs (either by package name,
>>
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:02:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:30:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> (ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
>
> Sorry, mailer misfire, I guess.
>
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek w
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:22:32PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> I'm trying to decide what I want to do about the ia64 kernel ABI. I
> rev'd it from -2 (currently in sarge) to -3 to turn off PREEMPT
> (prevents at least one user triggerable oops). This seemed convenient,
> since the k-s-2.6.8-14 h
I have finally finished wading through the bug reports and
put togther kernel-source-2.4.27 2.4.27-9 and
kernel-image-2.4.27-i386 2.4.27-9.
This update does _NOT_ contain ABI breakage,
although one symbol has been added to the ABI.
That is, the fix for CAN-2005-0449 has been omitted.
I am curren
I'm trying to decide what I want to do about the ia64 kernel ABI. I
rev'd it from -2 (currently in sarge) to -3 to turn off PREEMPT
(prevents at least one user triggerable oops). This seemed convenient,
since the k-s-2.6.8-14 had its own ABI change.
Well, turns out this was a bad idea - we've de
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:30:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> (ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
Sorry, mailer misfire, I guess.
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > recompiles on every revision of a kernel-image package, wh
The ABI/security discussions have left me with a question - at what
point does security maintenance of our kernels transition from the
debian-kernel/testing security teams to the Debian security team, and
how will we interact with one another? I assume there will be some
overlap, but it might be g
Actualy the SS5 (at least the one I have got here) does have the problem
for libc6 version I need a kernel above 2.4.21, and for that kernel I
need that libc6 version.
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ;
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, Marc
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Will work if you use a meta-package in base-installer for it, don't will?
I'm talking about ABI mersion mismatches between installer initrds and
kernel udebs, not in kernel debs.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess wrote:
> Suppose that sarge releases and you buy a copy of the official sarge
> businesscard CD image for your wallet. Or you burn a set of floppies.
Correction: businesscard does not have this problem; only installs from
floppy and netboot (and netboot mini-iso) does.
--
see shy jo
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Right. My suggestion doesn't address d-i issues. We have two
> options, it seems; the modules that are downloaded from a debian mirror
> can either be versioned to support multiple ABIs (either by package name,
> or by including multiple versions of modules in the package)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:57:35PM +0100, Robin Harmsen wrote:
> at this moment I am testing the Debian Installer on a SS5 (sun4m I thougt)
> cause I wanted a newer kernel then 2.2.20. but it isn't working very well
> I am willing to test this upgrade-kernel to get a beter kernel and be able
> t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:54:38PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > (or better: glibc
|| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500
|| Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jh> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
>> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> >> Cons:
jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at a
Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> Steve expressed concern about doing something like that (for
> obvious reasons); however, something to consider is using tcc for building
> modules. I have not tried it yet, but one of its touted features is its
> ability to compile a kernel in 10 seconds on a 2.4ghz
(ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
>> My idea is to do away w/ ABI considerations, and instead compile modules
>> in the kerne
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
>> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> >> Cons:
>> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
>> jh> - It become
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> Cons:
> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
> jh> - It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
>
|| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
|| Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Cons:
jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
jh> - It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
jh> have no precompiled modules for t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> The way that arch/subarch specific patches are handled needs to be thought
> out. There are architectures that are close to linus kernels, and there
> are those that aren't. The preferred way to do things is to have
> something sim
I installed a minimal basic "stable" installation of Debian (no packages
selected with tasksel or dselect)
when doing the upgade as stated on
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/ via the dpkg method.
I first needed to install zlib1g, ash and stat.
maby it is better to mention that those
I installed a minimal basic "stable" installation of Debian (no packages
selected with tasksel or dselect)
when doing the upgade as stated on
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/ via the dpkg method.
I first needed to install zlib1g, ash and stat.
maby it is better to mention that those
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Cons:
- Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
- It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
have no precompiled modules for them anymore.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Good day,
Delivered right to your door.
We have a large variety of all meds.
DHL Package tracking.
We have the lowest prices anywhere, guaranteed!
regotune.info
Best Regards,
Miguel Faris
red watermellon brown watermellon
Were those farmers practicing shouting next to the police station?. Was M
Hi,
Delivered right to your door.
We have a large variety of all meds.
DHL Package tracking.
We have the lowest prices anywhere, guaranteed!
regotune.info
Thanks Alot,
Samantha Brown
blue mango yellow watermellon
Until that day, he could not hear the language differences. He asked for the compu
Hi Matthew,
On Thursday, 24 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > (or better: glibc of woody to gl
reassign 298136 kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha
thanks
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:55:15PM +0100, Adrian Zaugg wrote:
> Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-smp
> Version: 2.4.27-7
> Severity: normal
>
I did a bit of searching on google, seems that there
might be an old bug in there. I am reasigning the bug
tag 296905 +pending
thanks
This fix is now in SVN and should appear in kernel-source-2.4.27 2.4.27-9
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 296905 +pending
Bug#296905: CAN-2005-0531: Buffer overflow in atm_get_addr
Tags were: security
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrato
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 298136 kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha
Bug#298136: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-smp: aieee with isp1020
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-image-2.4.27-2-smp' to
`kernel-image-2.4.27-alpha'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you ne
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available informati
Hi,
at this moment I am testing the Debian Installer on a SS5 (sun4m I thougt)
cause I wanted a newer kernel then 2.2.20. but it isn't working very well
I am willing to test this upgrade-kernel to get a beter kernel and be able
to do a woody->sarge upgrade
I think I will start with it right afther
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed file
Hi all.
As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
(or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
upgrades.
To my kn
there, I have to show you this
It's basically a date site that you don't have to pay for.
There are many guys, girls, couples, and I'm sure something for you.
Just so you know, alot of them are just looking for a one-night stand, or
"fuckfriend" as they call it.
So yeah, you can either find on
On Thursday 24 March 2005 05:51, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> We have a couple of pretty important bugfixes, which I would like to see
> tested as soon (and as much) as possible. Those are:
>
> * Modular IDE in kernel 2.4.27. That change potentially may affect all
> sparc machines with IDE controllers
Package: initrd-tools
Version: 0.1.77
Severity: important
Hello,
the driver for the QLogic adapter 6322 is now merged with qla6312 and
mkinitrd failes to run with kernels >= 2.6.11 because it still tries to
find the qla6322 module.
BTW, generally it would be better not to bail out with an error
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Now, for this to be fully efficient, there is still a little change that
> > needs done to d-i. Support for the kernel meta-packages for all arches.
> > A common kernel-official or whatever package will be created, including
> > a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 295412 + sarge
Bug#295412: initrd-tools: Fails to ignore 32bit emulation layer on ldd calls
Tags were: patch
Bug#279382: 64-bit kernel -> ldd -> mkinitrd issue
Bug#292080: error installing kernel-image-2.6.8-9-em64t-p4-smp
Bug#295422: kernel-image-
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 295412
Bug#295412: initrd-tools: Fails to ignore 32bit emulation layer on ldd calls
Bug#279382: 64-bit kernel -> ldd -> mkinitrd issue
Bug#292080: error installing kernel-image-2.6.8-9-em64t-p4-smp
Bug#295422: kernel-image-2.6.8-9-amd64-k8-smp: u
Accepted:
kernel-headers-2.6.8-10-amd64-generic_2.6.8-12_i386.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64/kernel-headers-2.6.8-10-amd64-generic_2.6.8-12_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6.8-10-amd64-k8-smp_2.6.8-12_i386.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64/kernel-headers-2.6.8-10-amd64-k8-sm
Your message dated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:19:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295422: fixed in kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:19:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295422: fixed in kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:19:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295422: fixed in kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:24:48 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> The proposal is the following :
>
> 1) now that rc3 is out we forget about the current kernels, well, not
> exactly, but we forget about the current kernel build system,
> including .udebs.
>
> 2) we take as basis the ubuntu
Your message dated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:19:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295422: fixed in kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:19:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295422: fixed in kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64_2.6.8-12_i386.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64_2.6.8-12.dsc
kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64_2.6.8-12.tar.gz
kernel-headers-2.6.8-10_2.6.8-12_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6.8-10-amd64-k8-smp_2.6.8-12_i386.deb
kernel-i
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:39:02AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > My idea would be to have a mechanism for loading modules earlier, and
> > move the initrd initialization as early as possible, and load modules
> > from there even before we do stuff like serial console setup or
> > framebuffer set
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:56:52 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:45PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:10:18 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:13:32PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
>
> Well, i was thinking about handling
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:35:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> As I touched on briefly on IRC, there is an upcoming kernel security fix
> that requires a bit of discussion. It appears that one of the security
> fixes that was included in kernel-source-2.6.8 2.6.8-14 (and backed ou
60 matches
Mail list logo
