On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 10:28 +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:35:29PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > > I think I'll go ahead and put this into our tree & revert if it causes
> > > problems.
> >
> > It is better to ad
Ok, I just tried with having only the 'skge' module loaded since boot.
Once again, ethernet died.
So, the summary is:
2.6.12, w/ sk98lin: Works
2.6.12 does not have skge.
2.6.15 w/ sk98lin & skge (yes, you can load both[0]): Fails
2.6.15 w/ sk98lin: Fails
2.6.15 w/ skge: Fails
where "fails" mea
On the topic of Security fixes and 2.4's upstream. Dann, myself, and
all others involved endeavour to push any patches we find that are
missing from upstream to the relevant parties. This includes 2.4 and
2.6, security and non-security patches. Marcelo has specifically asked
vendors (and others) t
Hi Holger,
thanks for raising this important issue and sorry for being slow to reply.
I think that I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, so I won't
reiterate that here. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to
clarify my position with regards to 2.4 in Etch.
When I first became invo
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:35:29PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > I think I'll go ahead and put this into our tree & revert if it causes
> > problems.
>
> It is better to add it to the s390 patch.
Could you please explain why you th
Your message dated Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:15:29 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295657: EXT3 on RAID problems in all 2.6-smp
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 case
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 23:18 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
> > Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > Even though 2.4 is moving very slowly nowadays (mostly security
> > > updates,
> > > very seldom new drivers are including), this is more work than
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> I think I'll go ahead and put this into our tree & revert if it causes
> problems.
It is better to add it to the s390 patch.
> The vulnerable code looks to be present in 2.4.27 as well, but I don't
> see a patch in either kernel-sour
Hi all,
I am mailing to close this bug. Some time ago I found out what the real
cause of it all was: a faulty memory chip. At boot time it checked out
fine, and even during operations it faulted only in 5% of the cases or
so. Intense runs of memtest86+ revealed the problem.
I removed the chip
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 10:24:55PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> I have cloned the installation report to #350482 and reassigned that to
> the linux-2.6 source package for this issue.
>
> The user confirmed this issue is still there for 2.6.15. I'll leave it to
> kernel maintainers to determine if t
How have you been,
We spoke a few days ago and I'd like to confirm everything now.
Please go over the information below and let me know if you have any questions.
www.queenla.com/am/
We are accepting your form. Your status has been accepted.
We need to confirm your details one more time. Jus
How are you, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We spoke a few days ago and I'd like to confirm everything now.
Please go over the information below and let me know if you have any questions.
www.queenla.com/am/
We are accepting your form. Your status has been accepted.
We need to confirm your details one mor
On Monday 30 January 2006 03:29, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Wouldn't it then be possible then to drop D-I support for 2.4 and ask
> user to install the old kernel, if needed after the installation? At
> least if supporting 2.4 for D-I is getting to complicate...
Switching from 2.4 to 2.6 (and vic
13 matches
Mail list logo
