hi Ben
Thanks very much for your reply.
> I looked for information on this hardware, and the first thing I found
> was that you previously reported several crashes to Debian on this same
> hardware:
> https://bugs.debian.org/834487
> https://bugs.debian.org/838658
> https://bugs.debian.org/847839
Your message dated Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:37:40 +0100
with message-id
and subject line fixed in unstable / stretch
has caused the Debian Bug report #848214,
regarding nfsdcltrack installed to wrong location
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:37:11AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Andrew Cooper suggested trying two patches:
> > https://github.com/xenserver/linux-3.x.pg/blob/master/master/series#L613-L614
[…]
> Using a kernel built with those patches the problem has gone away for
> me and has been stable for abou
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:18:03 +
Source: linux
Binary: linux-source-4.8 linux-support-4.8.0-0.bpo.2 linux-doc-4.8
linux-manual-4.8 linux-kbuild-4.8 linux-cpupower libcpupower1 libcpupower-dev
linux-perf-4.8 libusbip-de
linux_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
linux_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2.dsc
linux_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2.debian.tar.xz
linux-support-4.8.0-0.bpo.2_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2_all.deb
linux-doc-4.8_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2_all.deb
linux-manual-4.8_4.8.15-2~bpo8+2_all.deb
l
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:14:32 +
Source: kernel-handbook
Binary: debian-kernel-handbook debian-kernel-handbook-ja
Architecture: source
Version: 1.0.18
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian kernel team
kernel-handbook_1.0.18_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kernel-handbook_1.0.18.dsc
kernel-handbook_1.0.18.tar.xz
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Your message dated Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:34:25 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#818577: fixed in kernel-handbook 1.0.18
has caused the Debian Bug report #818577,
regarding spelling mistakes
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is no
Your message dated Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:54:49 +
with message-id <1484682889.2998.61.ca...@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#851702: linux-image-amd64: Important (and
unacceptable) delay for providing updates for users of signed linux kernels
has caused the Debian Bug report #851702,
reg
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 20:05 +0100, Julien Aubin wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> In that case you have to find a way to provide signed and unsigned images
> simultaneously.
>
> Otherwise to me it looks like a release blocker and I'll raise a ticket
> about this.
For stable security updates on security.debia
Package: linux-image-amd64
Version: 4.8+77~bpo8+1
Severity: critical
Tags: security
Justification: root security hole
Hi,
As of now two flavours of Linux kernels are released. The default ones are
signed ones while other unsigned kernels are available.
The problem is that there's a significant d
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 851695 -1
Bug #851695 [src:linux] replacing base package with -unsigned removes module
files
Bug 851695 cloned as bug 851699
> reassign -1 src:linux-signed
Bug #851699 [src:linux] replacing base package with -unsigned removes module
files
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 851695 src:linux 4.9.2-2
Bug #851695 [linux-image-4.9.0-1-amd64-unsigned] replacing base package with
-unsigned removes module files
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-image-4.9.0-1-amd64-unsigned' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as fou
Hi Ben,
In that case you have to find a way to provide signed and unsigned images
simultaneously.
Otherwise to me it looks like a release blocker and I'll raise a ticket
about this.
2017-01-17 18:55 GMT+01:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> Hello Ben,
>
> >No, there will be no such meta-packages. The -u
Package: linux-image-4.9.0-1-amd64-unsigned
Version: 4.9.2-2
Changing kernel package foo for foo-unsigned (or vice versa) ends up
removing modules.* files. It probably shouldn't.
} root@sid:~# ls -l /lib/modules/4.9.0-1-amd64/
} total 4048
} drwxr-xr-x 12 root root4096 Jan 17 19:26 kernel
}
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 18:55 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hello Ben,
>
> > No, there will be no such meta-packages. The -unsigned packages
> > are
> > only meant for developer testing and as build dependencies for
> > signed
> > binary packages.
>
> then, would you please kindly explain how yo
Hey, no worries. Thanks so much for the info.
Cheers,
On Wednesday, 18 January, 2017 01:56 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 17:24 +, Lester G wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> You're right, I did compile ath10k previously. Will it not be pushed
>> down to jessie?
> We do sometimes backp
Hello Ben,
>No, there will be no such meta-packages. The -unsigned packages are
>only meant for developer testing and as build dependencies for signed
>binary packages.
then, would you please kindly explain how you plan to address the
issue of not getting the security updates from newer kernel p
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 17:24 +, Lester G wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> You're right, I did compile ath10k previously. Will it not be pushed
> down to jessie?
We do sometimes backport drivers to stable, but I've not found the time
to do that recently.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of li
Hi Ben,
You're right, I did compile ath10k previously. Will it not be pushed down to
jessie?
Thanks.
On January 17, 2017 9:43:11 AM GMT+08:00, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 17:42 +, Lester G wrote:
Hi,
Good day.
What's the process of pushing a specific firmware to jessi
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 15:25 +0800, 张永肃 wrote:
> Package:linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64
> Version:3.16.36-1+deb8u1
>
> 3.16.36-1+deb8u1 (debian stable package) kernel panic,double fault.
>
> [952650.981869] PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0
> [952650.981909] CPU: 4 PID: 149
Your message dated Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:19:39 +
with message-id <1484673579.2998.50.ca...@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#851680: Please provide linux-image-amd64-unsigned et
al. metapackages (was Re: Please upload signed kernel images at the same time
as unsigned ones)
has caused th
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 moreinfo
Bug #851641 [src:linux] linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 panic:double fault
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
851641: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851641
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 847839 src:linux 3.16.36-1+deb8u1
Bug #847839 [linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64] linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 bug
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux/3.16.36-1+deb8u
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 802647 wishlist
Bug #802647 [src:linux] linux-image bug
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
> tags 802647 + wontfix
Bug #802647 [src:linux] linux-image bug
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me i
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 834487 834690
Bug #834487 [src:linux] linux-image bug
Bug #834690 [src:linux] linux-image bug
Merged 834487 834690
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
834487: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 851641 src:linux 3.16.36-1+deb8u1
Bug #851641 [linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64] linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64
panic:double fault
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux
Your message dated Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:59:47 +
with message-id <1484672387.2998.47.ca...@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#836293: linux-image bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #836293,
regarding linux-image bug
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
Could you raise a ticket about this instead of the -unsigned metapackage ?
(Actually a -signed metapackage would make much more sense)
2017-01-17 16:03 GMT+01:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Julien Aubin wrote:
>
> > ... or even better : the unsigned image is the default image (ends w
Hi Ben,
Am 09.01.2017 um 17:28 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v4.8-rc1&id=a867d7349e94b6409b08629886a819f802377e91
>
> But that's a merge commit. The patch you see is the combination of a
> long series of separate patches.
>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Julien Aubin wrote:
> ... or even better : the unsigned image is the default image (ends with
> -amd64) and the signed image (ends with -amd64-signed) provides the kernel
> unsigned package
That would be even better, yes.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstra
Package: linux-image-amd64
Version: 4.9+78
Severity: wishlist
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 02:16 PM, Julien Aubin wrote:
> > Signed linux kernel images tend to become the default as package
> > linux-latest is updated when linux-signed is updated.
> > So could you
[2048254.956923] PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0
[2048254.956950] CPU: 2 PID: 47295 Comm: parameter_serve Not tainted
3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2
[2048254.956952] Hardware name: Inspur SA5248M4/X10DRT-PS, BIOS 2.01 11/21/2016
[2048254.956954] task: 883c8adfd330 ti: 883f37
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:03:39 +0100
Source: linux
Binary: linux-source-4.8 linux-support-4.8.0-0.bpo.2 linux-doc-4.8
linux-manual-4.8 linux-kbuild-4.8 linux-cpupower libcpupower1 libcpupower-dev
linux-perf-4.8 libusbip-de
34 matches
Mail list logo
