On Friday 20 March 2009, Michal Marek wrote:
> Frans Pop napsal(a):
> > The use case here, which I suspect is not all that uncommon, is that
> > I built a kernel from upstream source on a (Debian unstable) system
> > with the new version of depmod and then installed that kernel on a
> > (Debian sta
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
> > iirc, again on boot anyway?
> Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
> when the kernel is in
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
> > iirc, again on boot anyway?
> Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
> when the kernel is i
On Mar 20, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Doesn't Debian run depmod in the postinst of the kernel package - and
> iirc, again on boot anyway?
Not anymore on boot, but I can't see why depmod should NOT being run
when the kernel is installed.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital sign
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 00:40 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> I think my 2 cents are played out by now, so I'll drop things here. Maybe
> someone else will be willing to take up the batton. At least the issue is
> somewhat documented now. I'll inform others in Debian that the issue
> exists and fix thi
Frans Pop napsal(a):
> The use case here, which I suspect is not all that uncommon, is that I
> built a kernel from upstream source on a (Debian unstable) system with
> the new version of depmod and then installed that kernel on a (Debian
> stable) system that has an older version of modprobe [1
On Friday 20 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Sure, if there are very strong reasons to break things, fine. But
> > whenever possible the kernel has ensured backwards compatibility,
> > mostly only _after_ someone "complained". Think of the i386 and
> > x86_64 symlinks after the x86 integration,
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 23:58 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I guess it's called progress ;) Sarcasm aside, if you can give me an
> > example of an actual real life set of users who are adversely affected
> > then I'll try to do something to help out. But if you're asking for old
> > versions of softwa
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
[...]
I understand how and why and when it works now. I can also easily avoid
the problem now that I know about it. The question here is if the
breakage is really necessary.
I ran into the problem within days of installing the new m-i-t. I don't
th
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 23:09 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Yes, it was a bad idea of
> > mine (perhaps) to change the existing file format and I've learned
> > something, but it should only have affected for example that 3.4
> > release you're using.
>
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
> Yes, it was a bad idea of
> mine (perhaps) to change the existing file format and I've learned
> something, but it should only have affected for example that 3.4
> release you're using.
Do you mean that earlier versions are not affected? Hasn't depmo
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:57 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Because the old modprobe does not understand the new relative (or rather
> rootless) paths, aggravated by the fact that initramfs-tools does not
> error out or display errors from modprobe (probably for good historic
> reasons), I suddenly h
(lkml dropped)
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:13 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > That would mean that m-i-t has created a backwards incompatibility
> > > problem _with itself_ and that the problem actually is "installing
> > > a kernel, that was buil
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:13 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> [ adding jcm and lkml to Cc: ]
[ You want linux-modu...@vger.kernel.org rather than LKML. I've added
the former to the CC list, we can kill LKML off the CC shortly. ]
> > That would mean that m-i-t has created a backwards incompatibili
[ adding jcm and lkml to Cc: ]
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Hmmm. I wonder if it is the old m-i-t's modprobe that is the problem when
> you do:
> modprobe --set-version=2.6.26.3 --ignore-install --show-depends
>
> Looks like that's it:
> # modprobe -V
> mod
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 06:43:27PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> f...@thorin:~$ grep ": .\+" /tmp/lib/modules/2.6.26.3/modules.dep | head -n3
> kernel/fs/cramfs/cramfs.ko: kernel/lib/zlib_inflate/zlib_inflate.ko
> kernel/fs/hfs/hfs.ko: kernel/fs/nls/nls_base.ko
> kernel/fs/nfs_common/nfs_acl.ko: kernel
On Thursday 19 March 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> copied over that file and saw still no sign of a trouble:
> mkinitramfs -v -o /tmp/foo | head -n 12
Here's the actual depmod command executed during a kernel build:
/sbin/depmod -ae -F System.map -b
/home/fjp/projects/kernel/builds/amd64/debi
thanks for quick feedback.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:15:06PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> You have to build a kernel from source while having the new m-i-t installed.
> And then install that kernel *without* running depmod (which is currently
> also not done by i-t).
well linux-2.6 images postin
On Thursday 19 March 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> thanks for quick feedback.
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:15:06PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > You have to build a kernel from source while having the new m-i-t
> > installed. And then install that kernel *without* running depmod
> > (which is cu
On Thursday 19 March 2009, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Recently kernels I built from upstream kernel source failed to boot
> > after unpacking them because no modules got included in the initramfs
> > initrd (and thus no root file system).
> > This problem was solved after downgrading to m-i-t 3.4
> Recently kernels I built from upstream kernel source failed to boot
> after unpacking them because no modules got included in the initramfs
> initrd (and thus no root file system).
> This problem was solved after downgrading to m-i-t 3.4.1.
how can i reproduce this?
upgraded to latest m-i-t 3.
21 matches
Mail list logo
