Ok, after a small chat with a part of the kernel team, it appears that :
1) preempt (and other -RT features ?) are still too broken for enabling in the
main flavours.
2) the kernel team has not the ressources to track these preempt flavours, and
the (load of) additional bug report they will creat
Hello
With recent version of kernel 2.5.15-1, the wake-up problem is gone:
My computer wakes up normally. I don't really know what triggered the
problem and what solved it.
I think you can close this bug.
Cheers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:06:17PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
Who made the comments you are replying to and where were those posts made ?
> > > I'm ambivalent on this point.
> > >
> > > However, to build the CDD, it would be nice if the CDD can be built
> > > completely from sources a
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:20:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This means you're not guaranteed to get /usr/sbin/sshd, which many admins
> use exclusively for system administration where remote kvm is not an
> affordable option. That's a pretty big problem.
Maybe we need a sshd in /sbin then,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:52:50PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) sarge-udev & etch-udev install concurently, maybe using the divert
> > > > or
> > > > alternative mechanism to not overwrite their files.
> > > As I explained, I do not
Hi,
> > I'm ambivalent on this point.
> >
> > However, to build the CDD, it would be nice if the CDD can be built
> > completely from sources available within Debian.
>
> As a humble user, I only vaguely understand all this business with realtime
> capabilities and the security issues involved.
Package: kernel-source-2.6.8
Version: 2.6.8-16sarge1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
This is a known issue with Kernel 2.6.8.
See http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.2/0550.html
Which has the following patch:
= fs/reiserfs/fix_node.c 1.35 vs edited =
--- 1.35/fs/reiserfs/fi
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:57:27PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, they need to reboot after installing udev/lvm, not before.
> > Then you've once again left the user without any assurance that their system
> > is bootable at t
Package: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686
Version: 2.6.15-5
Severity: normal
Hi!
I'm getting a *long* list of udev errors on boot, like:
udevd-event[xxx]: run_program: exec of program '/lib/udev/udev_run_hotplugd'
failed
and so on.
It seems these occur in the initrd. I don't really know how
to capt
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:45:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:21:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - Doesn't fuck the system if you lose power part-way through the
> >dist-upgrade after udev has been unpacked and no newer kernel has been
> >installed.
> Heh
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, they need to reboot after installing udev/lvm, not before.
> Then you've once again left the user without any assurance that their system
> is bootable at the end of the udev/lvm install.
Which is the same than the other way a
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:21:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - Doesn't fuck the system if you lose power part-way through the
>dist-upgrade after udev has been unpacked and no newer kernel has been
>installed.
Hehe, never thougth about that. i guess that having udev depend on a kerne
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:54:01PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:45:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Then what does this have to do with the problem people are trying to solve?
> > The problem is that there is *no* kernel available in sarge that meets the
> > needs o
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:47:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 10 February 2006 21:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, and let one vulnerable remote security update open for a day
> > > more, this is not acceptable. Even if only one user gets compromised
> > > because of this, then it is eno
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:27:12AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> > > acceptable for the etch release,
On Friday 10 February 2006 21:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, and let one vulnerable remote security update open for a day
> > more, this is not acceptable. Even if only one user gets compromised
> > because of this, then it is enough to warrant the upload.
Please read what I said. I did not say
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:26:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:59:49PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Allow me to wonder a bit about the way the last two kernel uploads were
> > handled.
> >
> > - 2.6.15-5 was pushed because it solved a remote security issue
> > (CVE-200
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:59:49PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Allow me to wonder a bit about the way the last two kernel uploads were
> handled.
>
> - 2.6.15-5 was pushed because it solved a remote security issue
> (CVE-2006-0454), however it was uploaded with urgency LOW
> - next day, 2.6.15-6
Allow me to wonder a bit about the way the last two kernel uploads were
handled.
- 2.6.15-5 was pushed because it solved a remote security issue
(CVE-2006-0454), however it was uploaded with urgency LOW
- next day, 2.6.15-6 that has a new upstream release is uploaded
Wouldn't it have made more
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:52:50PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > 1) sarge-udev & etch-udev install concurently, maybe using the divert
> > > > or
> > > > alternative mechanism to not overwrite their files.
> > > As I explained, I do n
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:45:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Then what does this have to do with the problem people are trying to solve?
> The problem is that there is *no* kernel available in sarge that meets the
> needs of the etch udev and lvm packages, and as a result people have to
> inst
Accepted:
kernel-image-2.6-486_2.6.15-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-486_2.6.15-6_i386.deb
kernel-image-2.6-686-smp_2.6.15-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-686-smp_2.6.15-6_i386.deb
kernel-image-2.6-686_2.6.15-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kern
linux-2.6_2.6.15-6_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
linux-2.6_2.6.15-6.dsc
linux-2.6_2.6.15-6.diff.gz
linux-manual-2.6.15_2.6.15-6_all.deb
linux-patch-debian-2.6.15_2.6.15-6_all.deb
linux-source-2.6.15_2.6.15-6_all.deb
linux-tree-2.6.15_2.6.15-6_all.
hey Everyone,
You've been identified as maintainers of packages that may need to be
rebuilt along with an ABI-changing sarge kernel security update. We are
in the process of such an update[1]. What we need from you is to know
whether or not your package needs rebuilding for this update and, in
On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) sarge-udev & etch-udev install concurently, maybe using the divert or
> > > alternative mechanism to not overwrite their files.
> > As I explained, I do not believe that on-disk co-existence of two udev
> > packages is feasible.
> Mmm,
Package: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686
Version: 2.6.15-4
Followup-For: Bug #351623
This completely breaks booting if your root partition is on reiserfs.
The yaird pivot_root program is unable to open /dev/console, so dies.
2.6.15-3 was OK.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
AP
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:54:37PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The 2.6.8 kernel is already running, and the kernel upgrade needs a reboot
> > anyway, so, we only need something that :
> >
> > - don't mess up the currently running stuff, i
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:01:05PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:55 +0100
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1) sarge-udev & etch-udev install concurently, maybe using the
> > divert or alternative mech
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:55 +0100
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) sarge-udev & etch-udev install concurently, maybe using the
> divert or alternative mechanism to not overwrite their files.
Beware that some packages depend versioned on
On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 2.6.8 kernel is already running, and the kernel upgrade needs a reboot
> anyway, so, we only need something that :
>
> - don't mess up the currently running stuff, is it possible to have udev
> installed to take effect after the next r
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:27:12AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> > acceptable for the etch release, as has been said already in the past.
> This would be nice, but so
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.51
Followup-For: Bug #336519
i tested the following combination of initramfs-tools and linux-image,
and they appear to work together just fine.
ii initramfs-tools 0.51 tools for generating an initramfs
ii linux-image-2.6-486 2.6.15-5 Linux
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:37:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't see that this is a very good solution. Disabling all of the
> > available boot options for the system doesn't prevent incidental breakage,
> > it jus
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:37:21AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see that this is a very good solution. Disabling all of the
> available boot options for the system doesn't prevent incidental breakage,
> it just changes the *kind* of incidental breakage you get.
It makes it impos
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:45:04AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:57:25AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> > acceptable for the etch release, as has been said already in the past.
> Hmm. Are there p
On Feb 10, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> acceptable for the etch release, as has been said already in the past.
This would be nice, but so far nobody has been able to design anything
better, myself included.
>
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.15-5
Severity: important
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:46:01PM -0500, Jay Estabrook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:51:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As of two days ago, the debian-installer svn tree has been switched to use
> > Linux 2.6.15 exclusively on
tags 352164 +pending
thanks
Hello,
sorry this is my fault. I removed the file from my build tree, the next
upload will be clean again.
Best regards
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:57:25AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> We need something which upgrades seamlessly, and the above solution is not
> acceptable for the etch release, as has been said already in the past.
Hmm. Are there problems with the following:
- Upgrade works but asks the not yet comple
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:20:00AM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Moin,
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:14:23PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> >
> > Please raise your voice if you have open things you need to add before
> > 2.6.15-6 will be uploaded; we want to make it in time for dinstall
Moin,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:14:23PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>
> Please raise your voice if you have open things you need to add before
> 2.6.15-6 will be uploaded; we want to make it in time for dinstall
> tomorrow.
*Raeusper*
Tomorrow as in saturday, feb 11?
Christian
--
To UN
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:32:21AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Now that 2.6.15 kernels are in testing I'd like to raise the kernel
> requirement for the udev package from 2.6.12 to 2.6.15 as soon as a new
> version of udev will have entered testing.
> This will let me remove a lot of cruft from th
42 matches
Mail list logo
