Bug#368399: netbase: Wake-on-LAN doesn't work after shutdown

On May 22, Christian Pernegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a difference between deconfiguring the interface (so that it > keeps the link but looses the IP) and turning the NIC off. I suppose that the kernel does both. > The question is, what conditions must be met for a device to keep >

Bug#368399: netbase: Wake-on-LAN doesn't work after shutdown

Yes, shutting down the interface is considered a feature or the kernel will continue routing/accepting traffic. Strange feature - the system should provide standby power to devices that are configured for wake-up. This can include one or more NICs, but also USB devices (keyboards, mice, some web

Bug#368406: "KERNEL BUG" message in syslog

Package: kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686 Version: 2.6.8-16sarge2 I found the following kernel message (cp some 75G data to a FAT32 partition on an external USB2 hard drive): May 19 14:57:20 localhost kernel: [ cut here ] May 19 14:57:20 localhost kernel: PREEMPT May 19 14:57:20

Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > Hi, > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > branch in the archive. > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 > Binary: kernel-sour

Processed: Re: Bug#368399: netbase: Wake-on-LAN doesn't work after shutdown

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 368399 kernel-image-2.6-k7 Bug#368399: netbase: Wake-on-LAN doesn't work after shutdown Bug reassigned from package `netbase' to `kernel-image-2.6-k7'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug t

Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > need some further discussion among the m68k folks... does this also mean > that an etch installation will require a 2.6 kernel to run on the machine? My intention is to continue to support 2.2 and 2.4 kernels in the installe

Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > > branch in the archive. > > > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Bi

Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:35:05PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote: > Hi, > > i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 > branch in the archive. > > Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k > > Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 > Binary: kernel-sour

Re: kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:10:51PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Frans believes that sepearate source packages are more feasible for allowing > > this type of shuffling > > If someone goes crazy, it may see this as GPL violation. Ah, excellent point. The source producing some of the .udeb kerne

Re: kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote: > Kernel udeb creation process (possibly using k-p?) > - > If we build all of the *existing* udebs from a single source, we outgrow > the limit of the Binary: field in the control file. Hu

Re: kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6

[ drop debian-release from CC ] On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote: > Kernel udeb creation process (possibly using k-p?) > - > If we build all of the *existing* udebs from a single source, we outgrow > the limit of the Binar

removing 2.2 from the archive?

Hi, i've noticed that there are 2 packages for/referecing the kernel 2.2 branch in the archive. Package: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k Binary: kernel-patch-2.2.25-m68k Package: kernel-source-2.2.25 Binary: kernel-source-2.2.25, kernel-doc-2.2.25 Are these two actually needed/used today? Or can they

Processed: tagging 368043

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.19 > tags 368043 pending Bug#368043: initramfs-tools: postinstall script can require /usr/share/doc/ There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here

kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6

hey, Frans Pop assembled an informal BoF at DebConf to discuss cross-team issues related to the kernel[1]. Attendees included: Micah Anderson (micah) Andreas Barth (aba) dann frazier (dannf) Joey Hess (joeyh) Moritz Muehlenhoff (jmm) Frans Pop (fjp) Manoj Srivastava (manoj) ...a

Re: removing 2.4 from etch/sid

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:26:40AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:53, Sven Luther wrote: > > We have metapackages in place, which i believe will take charge of > > upgrading from the 2.4 to the chosen etch 2.6 kernel. This, as any > > kernel upgrade, will need a reboot, which

Bug#366291: marked as done (Module ABI broken)

Your message dated Sun, 21 May 2006 07:23:22 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#366291: fixed in linux-2.6 2.6.16-13 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 it is no

Bug#368353: "BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!" in __d_lookup during cp -l

Package: linux-image-2.6.15-1-amd64-k8-smp Version: 2.6.15-8 Severity: important I am seeing occasional overnight system hangs. At least one has been caused by the following kernel problem (syslog entry follows)... May 21 01:30:39 black kernel: <3>BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1! May 21 01:3

Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:09:08PM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: > On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:41:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > >> > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08

Re: Addition of Newer Kernel @ etch & 1/2

On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:47:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > If we want to prepare for this possibility, the one issue that the d-i > > folks pointed out is that we'd probably want to refactor our meta > > packages such that we could have both metapackages for the latest > > 2.6.N and additiona

linux-2.6_2.6.16-13_powerpc.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: kernel-image-2.6-power3-smp_2.6.16-13_powerpc.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-power3-smp_2.6.16-13_powerpc.deb kernel-image-2.6-power3_2.6.16-13_powerpc.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-power3_2.6.16-13_powerpc.deb kernel-image-2.6-power4-smp_2.6.16-13_powe

linux-2.6_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: linux-headers-2.6-amd64-generic_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_amd64.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6-amd64-generic_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_amd64.deb linux-headers-2.6-amd64-k8-smp_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_amd64.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux

linux-2.6_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: kernel-image-2.6-386_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_i386.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-386_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_i386.deb kernel-image-2.6-686-smp_2.6.16+2.6.17-rc3-0experimental.1_i386.deb to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/kernel-image-2.6-686-smp_2.6.16+2.6.

Bug#368308: linux-image-2.6.16-1-686: kernel Oops when trying to use ov511

Package: linux-image-2.6.16-1-686 Version: 2.6.16-12 Severity: important -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686 Lo