On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Sorry for not getting back to you about this earlier.
>
> On 7/7/19 3:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > [...]
> > > No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
> > >
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 19:25 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [CC += ftpmaster]
>
> On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 17:49 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an
> > > exception for t
[CC += ftpmaster]
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 17:49 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> [...]
> > We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an
> > exception for the arch:all binaries from src:linux. When the next
> > ABI bump in unsta
On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:55 -0300, Ivo De Decker wrote:
[...]
> We are aware that src:linux is a special case here. I added an exception
> for the arch:all binaries from src:linux. When the next ABI bump in
> unstable happens, feel free to let me know, so that I can check if it
> works as expect
Hi Ben,
Sorry for not getting back to you about this earlier.
On 7/7/19 3:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
[...]
No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
=
The release of buster also means the bul
> "Ben" == Ben Hutchings writes:
Ben> On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Ben> [...]
>> No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
>> =
>>
>> The release of buster also means the bullseye release cycle is
On Sun, 2019-07-07 at 02:47 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
[...]
> No binary maintainer uploads for bullseye
> =
>
> The release of buster also means the bullseye release cycle is about to begin.
> From now on, we will no longer allow binaries uploaded by
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other
> >> newer
> >> things newer kernels might require.
> >
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 00.43, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Why don't we use RHEL's kernel, or collaborate with them to maintain a
> stable kernel tree, or something?
The real nice thing would be a central mailing list where all kernel
development were coordinated. Perhaps some sort of industry-s
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:11:00PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > For the installer, sure, but the generation of the d-i kernel .udebs is only
> > marginally of their relevance, and furthermore they don't want the
> > responsability associated with it, and as proof i can show you
Sven Luther wrote:
> For the installer, sure, but the generation of the d-i kernel .udebs is only
> marginally of their relevance, and furthermore they don't want the
> responsability associated with it, and as proof i can show you that joeyh
> upgraded kernel-wedge and the x86 d-i module udebs, bu
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> the -rc kernels are build in experimental, staging area for unstable
> and without any potential d-i breakage.
Ah, nice, I did not notice it. Perhaps it should get some more publicity
to attract more testers :-)
Gabor
--
* Gabor Gombas wrote:
> Packaging at least -rc kernels for unstable might be a good idea for
> Debian too. That would provide more testing coverage for -rc releases,
> and this is what upstream needs the most.
We already had some -rc releases in experimental for 2.6.14 and
2.6.15.
Norbert
--
T
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:51:17PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
>
> Packaging at least -rc kernels for unstable might be a good idea for
> Debian too. That would provide more testing coverage for -rc releases,
> and this is what upstream needs the most.
the -rc kernels are build in experimental, s
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
> if Ubuntu shows up as a candidate, I would like to add Progeny, Linspire,
> Xandros, "DCC Alliance Fan Club" and also other Debian Deriv
also sprach Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.04.0043 +0100]:
> Why don't we use RHEL's kernel, or collaborate with them to maintain a
> stable kernel tree, or something?
I doubt RH has the same concept of stability as we do, and I surely
don't want a plethora of potentially untested or bu
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Sven Luther
>
> | I believe it has also an influence on the place where the source package is
> | ohold (alioth svn repo over whatever strange stuff ubuntu uses), and they
> said
> | we should use their system.
>
> yeah, git,
* Sven Luther
| I believe it has also an influence on the place where the source package is
| ohold (alioth svn repo over whatever strange stuff ubuntu uses), and they said
| we should use their system.
yeah, git, really strange stuff in the world of Linux kernel
development. Available from
rs
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:58:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> well, the kernel is definitly about the same level as the toolchain and
> standard/base - changes can have very easily impact on the installer,
> and it is not an option to remove the package if it is broken.
Nope, still it is more i
Sorry for the long mail, but i believe there is something important all the
way done, so if you cannot be bothered to read it all; please go down to the
point marked *IMPORTANT*.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:05:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You have been harranguing the ftp team to approve new
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 23:02]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > the other hand side, the difference is only one week - and if nothing is
> > broken by that, we can freeze the kernel at N-110 also.
> i think comparing the kernel with the toolc
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:34:43PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
> > 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
>
> > Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
> > if Ubuntu shows up as a
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:23:31AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/3/55
> Perhaps the idea of maintain a kernel with other distros is not bad,
> if Ubuntu shows up as a candidate, I would like to add Progeny, Linspire,
> Xandros, "DCC Allianc
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:27:25PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > (forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
> > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/2006 10:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>>
>>>On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:10:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But yes, udev is the problematic case, altough i run 2.6.14 with sarge udev
> and it works.
AFAIK it should work with the default ruleset. It breaks only with
certain custom rules due to a bug in the libsysfs version used by udev.
So
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:43:28PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other
> >> newer
> >> things newer kernels might require.
> >
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:28:15PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
> things newer kernels might require.
Notice that Linus recently expressed on LKML that udev and other userland
breakage on kernel upgrade is not to acceptabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
>> things newer kernels might require.
> OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
> lack the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:24:04 +0100
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Without the "current method sucks" comments please; saying "I
> > think the current situation could be improved by..." is much more
> > likely to get positive reactions.)
>
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> > should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> > [...]
> > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two
On Jan 04, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to mention that 2.6.15 requires a newer udev. Who knows what other newer
> things newer kernels might require.
OTOH, old kernel are buggy and out of date wrt modern hardware, and we
lack the manpower to backport for years fixes and new featur
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:04:39PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal of
> > this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
> > which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:13:37AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
> > and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
> > that works out just fine for ubunt
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:09:18PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back
> > in
> > april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
> > with regard to kernels during these past months.
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote:
> The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation
> and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something
> that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current
> linux-2.6 common package infrastruc
Sven Luther wrote:
> And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back in
> april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
> with regard to kernels during these past months.
Pedantically speaking, fjp made no d-i release decisions last April.
Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal of
> this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an implementation
> which convinces them :) The release team deserves to be informed about the
> possibility though.
Cite message-ids or irc l
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal
> > of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
> > implementation which convinces them :
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal
> of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
> implementation which convinces them :)
Bullshit.
We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:26:02PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> > should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> > [...]
> > We will have a kernel whi
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> (forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
>
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> > with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release ever
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
> >
> > Why do you put the kernel t
(forgot to CC d-kernel on this)
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time
> with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2
> month.
2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timi
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
> timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
> us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
Yeah, i was already chidded (?) th
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
>
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> [...]
> We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
> this plan, since there are
Hi,
thanks for your mail. I just want to point out that we published the
timeline already back in October, but of course, that shouldn't refrain
us from changing it if this is necessary. :)
[re-arranged the quote]
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 22:03]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> N-110 = Mon 7 Aug 06: freeze base, non-e
49 matches
Mail list logo
