Bug#771364: Full logs

2014-11-28 Thread Nikolaus Rath
As promised, here are the full logs for a resume attempt ending with reboot. microcom -p /dev/ttyUSB0 connected to /dev/ttyUSB0 Escape character: Ctrl-\ Type the escape character followed by c to get to the menu or q to quit [0.00] CPU0 microcode updated early to revis

Bug#771379: linux-image-3.16-0.bpo.3-amd64: backport kernels not booting when root file system is on an LVM volume

2014-11-28 Thread lee
Package: src:linux Version: 3.16.5-1~bpo70+1 Severity: important + do an installation that has the root file system on an LVM volume + once finished, install the backports kernel this removes initramfs-tools because the backports kernel uses dracut + make sure the backports kernel is act

Processed: tagging 727149

2014-11-28 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 727149 - moreinfo Bug #727149 [src:linux] linux-image-3.10-3-amd64: Network adapter (Intel 82579V) hangs during TX, causing reset and undetected data corruption at the other side Removed tag(s) moreinfo. > thanks Stopping processing here.

Bug#771364: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64: Resume from hibernate ends with reboot ~20% of the time

2014-11-28 Thread Nikolaus Rath
Package: src:linux Version: 3.16.7-2 Severity: normal File: /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 About 20% of the time that I resume my system from hibernation, it reboots during the resume. After the reboot, the system boots normally (i.e., no resume). For debugging, I have booted with "console=ttyS0,11

Bug#771340: linux-tools-3.16: perf not built for arm64

2014-11-28 Thread Steve Capper
Package: linux-tools-3.16 Severity: important Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, For arm64, perf is not being built for Jessie. I have attached a patch which works for me on a Juno board. A kernel patch is cherry-picked to fix a perf build bug (this only affects the arm64 tree). Also, I have modifie

Bug#771339: linux: linux-headers 3.16 Makefile contains VERSION=2 PATCHLEVEL=6

2014-11-28 Thread Lennart Sorensen
Source: linux Version: 3.16.7-2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, I was trying to build the loop-aes-source modules and kept having odd errors about loop.h-3.x not existing, while for some reason the loop.h-2.6 was there. Of course the build was for a 3.16 kernel and hence wanted the 3.x file.

Re: linux-headers lying about kernel version is breaking other module packages

2014-11-28 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:25:56AM +, Ian Campbell wrote: > It looks to me like you have discovered a bug[0] rather than some sort > of conspiracy against well maintained module packages. I recommend > filing it in the BTS as such. OK, I will do so. I just thought I should ask before filing a

Re: linux-headers lying about kernel version is breaking other module packages

2014-11-28 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:08 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > I was trying to compile loop-aes-source, but it keeps failing. Why not use dm-crypt? > For some > reason it kept thinking the kernel version was 2.6, when it is in > fact 3.16. The problem is that it looks at the VERSION and PATCHLEVEL

Processed: Re: Bug#762984: Alert! /dev/vg0/usr does not exist

2014-11-28 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > clone 762984 -2 Bug #762984 [initramfs-tools] initramfs-tools: Alert! /dev/vg0/usr does not exist Bug 762984 cloned as bug 771301 > retitle 762984 cannot mount /usr if it is a separate LVM LV: Alert! > /dev/vg0/usr does not exist Bug #762984 [initramfs-tools] initr

Bug#762984: Alert! /dev/vg0/usr does not exist

2014-11-28 Thread Simon McVittie
Control: clone 762984 -2 Control: retitle 762984 cannot mount /usr if it is a separate LVM LV: Alert! /dev/vg0/usr does not exist Control: retitle -2 cannot mount /usr if INITRDSTART in /etc/default/mdadm does not include the necessary device On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 at 21:09:09 +0100, Elimar Riesebi

Re: linux-headers lying about kernel version is breaking other module packages

2014-11-28 Thread Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:08 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > What is the point in doing this? Why punish module source packages that > correctly know how to handle 3.x kernels just to deal with old broken > ones that assumed 2.6 forever? It looks to me like you have discovered a bug[0] rather tha