* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050325 02:05]:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:30:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > That is irritating, but less so than rebooting and discovering you need to
> > run `module-assistant auto-install ` to compile a module for an ABI
> > change (and if the machin
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:57:45PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> Cons:
> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
> jh> - It becomes impossible to inclu
Joey Hess wrote:
Suppose that sarge releases and you buy a copy of the official sarge
businesscard CD image for your wallet. Or you burn a set of floppies.
Now a security fix comes out, the kernel ABI is changed, and you try to
install using your old official sarge installation media. At this point
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:36:52 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Right. My suggestion doesn't address d-i issues. We have two
>> options, it seems; the modules that are downloaded from a debian mirror
>> can either be versioned to support multiple ABIs (either by package name,
>>
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:02:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:30:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> (ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
>
> Sorry, mailer misfire, I guess.
>
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek w
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:30:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> (ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
Sorry, mailer misfire, I guess.
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > recompiles on every revision of a kernel-image package, wh
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Will work if you use a meta-package in base-installer for it, don't will?
I'm talking about ABI mersion mismatches between installer initrds and
kernel udebs, not in kernel debs.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess wrote:
> Suppose that sarge releases and you buy a copy of the official sarge
> businesscard CD image for your wallet. Or you burn a set of floppies.
Correction: businesscard does not have this problem; only installs from
floppy and netboot (and netboot mini-iso) does.
--
see shy jo
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Right. My suggestion doesn't address d-i issues. We have two
> options, it seems; the modules that are downloaded from a debian mirror
> can either be versioned to support multiple ABIs (either by package name,
> or by including multiple versions of modules in the package)
|| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500
|| Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jh> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
>> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> >> Cons:
jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at a
Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> Steve expressed concern about doing something like that (for
> obvious reasons); however, something to consider is using tcc for building
> modules. I have not tried it yet, but one of its touted features is its
> ability to compile a kernel in 10 seconds on a 2.4ghz
(ignoring -release followup-to, since it affects -kernel and -boot as well)
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:24:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
>> My idea is to do away w/ ABI considerations, and instead compile modules
>> in the kerne
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
>> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> >> Cons:
>> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
>> jh> - It become
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> || On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
> || Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> Cons:
> jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
> jh> - It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
>
|| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:05:05 -0500
|| Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jh> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Cons:
jh> - Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
jh> - It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
jh> have no precompiled modules for t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> The way that arch/subarch specific patches are handled needs to be thought
> out. There are architectures that are close to linus kernels, and there
> are those that aren't. The preferred way to do things is to have
> something sim
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Cons:
- Does not address issues with d-i udebs and abi changes at all.
- It becomes impossible to include third-party modules in d-i, since we
have no precompiled modules for them anymore.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:31:24AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Now, for this to be fully efficient, there is still a little change that
> > needs done to d-i. Support for the kernel meta-packages for all arches.
> > A common kernel-official or whatever package will be created, including
> > a
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:24:48 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> The proposal is the following :
>
> 1) now that rc3 is out we forget about the current kernels, well, not
> exactly, but we forget about the current kernel build system,
> including .udebs.
>
> 2) we take as basis the ubuntu
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:35:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> As I touched on briefly on IRC, there is an upcoming kernel security fix
> that requires a bit of discussion. It appears that one of the security
> fixes that was included in kernel-source-2.6.8 2.6.8-14 (and backed ou
20 matches
Mail list logo
