I don't see any general solution that is both correct and easy.
I don't think there is one.
In an ideal world all our computers would have a trusted source of true
randomness. In practice that is not the case. Older computers don't have a
hardware random number generator at all and newer compu
Common practice for downstreams (whether complete derivatives or end users) is
to version modified packages with a version number like
4.16.5-1+something1
Where "something" is the name of a project, the name of the person performing
the modification etc.
Unfortunately with 4.16.5-1 of the ker
I have some imx6 based boards which work as autobuilders for raspbian. I
use btrfs for efficient snapshotting and have had some issues (crashes,
weird filesystem errors) which I suspect are down to btrfs. As such i've
been frequently upgradeing the kernel to the latest versions from
experimenta
jared_doming...@dell.com wrote:
What differences are there from Debian's kernel that preclude using
DKMS? What do you mean by "does not generally integrate with Debian stuff?
Well AIUI Debian kernel packages have
* a corresponding headers package
* Some kind of hook mechanism to integrate with
Currently the raspberry pi foundation build their kernel and firmware
into the same package in a way that does not work with dkms or generally
integrate with Debian stuff. I've recently been talking to shiftplusone
(who works for them) about the possibility of improving this.
Currently i'm awa
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 03.12.2014, 23:02 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Trying to use it, but ghc fails to install in the schroot, and using
just dd-schroot-cmd, I cannot debug this. Does installing ghc work
properly for you?
$ dd-schroot-cmd -c ghc apt-get install g
Karsten Merker wrote:
Browse online:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/base-installer.git/tree/debian/templates-arch
Adding -arm@ and -boot@ for possible comments/insight.
I suppose the reason for MODULES=dep being the default on arm*
might be that some armel systems boot their kernel
Tags 746420 +pending
Severity 746420 serious
This is a FTBFS on a release architecture and hence serious. It has also
been fixed in svn (not by me)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Package: linux-image-3.10-1-armmp
Severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Recently a device tree was added to linux-next for the wandboard quad
(very similar to the wandboard dual which debian already appears to be
supplying a device tree for).
https://git.kernel.org/cgi
Ben Hutchings wrote:
The other option that has been suggested repeatedly is to put armel
chroots on ARMv7 hardware. Unaligned accesses behave differently on
v7, but they weren't consistent between different v5 implementations
(http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/Unaligned_data_access) so I don't
th
Sorry there is no lvm involved just raid. I had a brainfart when writing
the topic.
peter green wrote:
I decided to upgrade a machine to a 3.8 kernel. At the time the
machine was running a mostly squeeze system. The machine failed to
mount the root filesystem.
At first I thought this was
I decided to upgrade a machine to a 3.8 kernel. At the time the machine
was running a mostly squeeze system. The machine failed to mount the
root filesystem.
At first I thought this was related to the use of uuid for the root
filesystem, so I changed that to directly specifying /dev/md0 and it
gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:48:24 +, peter green wrote:
Can this test be expressed in some easy terms to be used in
debian/rules?
DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE ?=$(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
ARM_VERSION_NUMBER :=$(shell $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-cpp -dM /dev
gregor herrmann wrote:
As armhf really describes the ABI rather than the underlying CPU
architecture, it would make our jobs with Raspbian much easier if CPU
architecture dependent packages could test that the architecture is indeed
Armv7+ and not blindly assume armhf implicitly means the system
Ben Hutchings wrote:
The wilful incompatibility of Debian derivatives
Raspbian IS compatible with debian armhf in the sense that if your
hardware supports it you can mix debian armhf packages and raspbian
packages. In fact that is how raspbian was built in the first place.
Precedent both with
I'm pretty sure both from the name and from behaviour i've seen as i've
changed other things that debian/rules.gen in the source package
linux-2.6 is a generated file. However I haven't been able to figure out
where the code is that generated it. Can someone give me a pointer to
the relavent co
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:38:53PM +, peter green wrote:
Can you please report it upstream at bugzilla.kernel.org and add
the bug number to the bug log?
Unfortunately it looks like i'll have to re-test with a vanilla upstream
kernel before i'
Can you please report it upstream at bugzilla.kernel.org and add
the bug number to the bug log?
Unfortunately it looks like i'll have to re-test with a vanilla upstream
kernel before i'm allowed to do that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
Peter, is this bug still reproducible with 2.6.26 from Lenny?
yes
and with the 2.6.27 version from that archive someone told me to try
earlier in the bug report.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64
Version: 2.6.24-5
Severity: important
With 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 the onboard ethernet on my brothers desktop PC no
longer works. The system announces the link is up then soon afterwards
announces a timeout then announces it is up again and the process
repeats end
despite the best intentions of debian i am convinced that most users will
not read the release notes and over the lifetime of the etch release
having large ammounts (just how much is needed to trigger this bug btw) of
memory will become more and more common.
what does the sarge kernel do when plac
L PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 October 2004 14:33
> To: Peter Green
> Cc: Adeodato Simó; debian-kernel@lists.debian.org;
> debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Dropping 386 support
>
>
> peter green wrote:
> > calling stuff i386 when it wi
calling stuff i386 when it will not run natively on a 386 seems like asking
for confustion to me
why and when was this instruction emulation needed in the first place (that
is why and when was the userland changed to need it)
> -Original Message-
> From: Adeodato Simó [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
> -Original Message-
> From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 August 2004 22:59
> To: debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-boot@lists.debian.org;
> debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge
>
>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
24 matches
Mail list logo
