Re: linux-2.4 deprecated

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > A few weeks ago, the 2.4 kernels have been declared "deprecated" [1]. I > would like to know what does this exactly mean: > - That users are advised not to use them? > - That we could drop support for them in other packages? > - Tha

Bug#361150: Kernel install process contains a time window that can lead to an unusable system

Package: linux-2.6 Severity: normal This is about the kernel image installation process (all linux-image-*) There is a critical time window during install that occurs if - multiple packages are being installed at once (for exemple during "apt-get upgrade") - *AND* the same kernel is being upd

Bug#360669: Blast, SMBFS isn't an alternative

SMBFS in the kernel turns out to not do packet-signing. So the same servers where this bug breaks CIFS are the ones you can't use SMBFS to. (ie. Win2K3 Small Business Server in the default config, or Windows 2003 Server w/ Service Pack 1 in the default config, as I understand it) -- Paul "TBBle"

Re: only 1 cpu is shown in top

Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * dedesi peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-06 11:36]: >> It seems good, but the 'top' show only one cpu, like this: >> >> How can I check that both of CPUs are working at all? > > I think our top doesn't support SMP. I you use the "atop" package it

mob

balls acute angle drowsy impound ambivalent in outdated in!!! bric-a-brac to of magnify derail a the sketchy rampage inflexibility blew instigate, knee loads, sin   ~~~   There is a massive promotion underway this weekend apprising potential eager investors of this emerging situation.

Re: proper generic 64bit/crosscompilation ARCH/flags selection

Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > > I would like to get more competent comments from concerned kernel > packages on the issue quoted below. There is already a hack for sparc64: I'm not sure this answeres your problem but in recent kernels the kernel adds the -m64 flag for amd64

Re: only 1 cpu is shown in top

Thanks! The atop shows cpu000 and cpu001. Now I belive... Peter Martin Michlmayr wrote: * dedesi peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-06 11:36]: It seems good, but the 'top' show only one cpu, like this: How can I check that both of CPUs are working at all? I think our

Re: only 1 cpu is shown in top

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I think our top doesn't support SMP. I you use the "atop" package it > certainly shows multiple CPUs though. No, it reports cpus, not cpu. Bastian -- Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude. -- Spock, "Metamo

Re: only 1 cpu is shown in top

* dedesi peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-06 11:36]: > It seems good, but the 'top' show only one cpu, like this: > > How can I check that both of CPUs are working at all? I think our top doesn't support SMP. I you use the "atop" package it certainly shows multiple CPUs though. -- Martin Mich

only 1 cpu is shown in top

Hi All, I havean asus ncch-dl motherboard, with 2x Xean 2,8GHz CPUs. I have installs Debian sarge and compiled kernel 2.6.16 smp. The /proc/cpuinfo show the following: processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM

Bug#360893: udev takes too long to create /dev/hda... and system drops to a shell

> > The kernel 2.6.8-2-686 cannot use the current udev but boots fine, > > except that X does not start, since it finds no mouse. > sure there you would need to load mousedev by hand or have > it listed in /etc/modules.. The first option works fine, the second option lets X come up, but the mouse

proper generic 64bit/crosscompilation ARCH/flags selection

Hello, I would like to get more competent comments from concerned kernel packages on the issue quoted below. There is already a hack for sparc64: ifeq ($(ARCH),) SPARCH=$(shell grep 'CONFIG_SPARC..=y' "$(KSRC)/.config" 2>/dev/null| cut -d= -f1) #maybe a different ARCH on sparc ifeq (CONFIG_SPARC

Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion

#include * Sven Luther [Thu, Apr 06 2006, 08:09:46AM]: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:08PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > >So, directly using make-kpkg as was the recomended way until now is no more > > >supported ? > > > > Recommended by whom? :-)