Hi,
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> It won't take long for a problem report to roll in to justify turning it
> off in the .config anyway, so I'm not concerned if it's not immediate.
I only uploaded kernel-source anyway, so whoever does
kernel-image-i386 can still disable the config option.
Rega
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 09:36, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I'd be in favor of that also.
>> It was mentioned that this may cause complaints that the feature is not
>> present. I would rather risk that than other failure modes.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:32:23AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> If
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 09:36, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:25:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> FYI, kernel-image-2.6.7-i386 builds fine w/ these kernel sources, as long
> >> as CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y (instead of 'm'; the modular swsusp patch is
> >> broken for 2
At some point in the past, hch wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we disable swsusp instead? The code is flakey at least and
>>> eats quite a bit of memory that seems to be scare on the boot floppies.
William Lee Irwin III writes:
>> I'd be in favor of that also.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:09:50PM +0200, Jens
Hi,
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> > Shouldn't we disable swsusp instead? The code is flakey at least and
> > eats quite a bit of memory that seems to be scare on the boot floppies.
>
> I'd be in favor of that also.
Ah, too bad. I'm just uploading a new build that fixes kernel-tree
(most imp
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:25:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> FYI, kernel-image-2.6.7-i386 builds fine w/ these kernel sources, as long
>> as CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y (instead of 'm'; the modular swsusp patch is
>> broken for 2.6.7). If anyone's interested in the actual packages, I can
>> th
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:36:29AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> I wouldn't consider this sid-ready, as I
> a) forgot to remove the {arch} and .arch-ids directories
> b) didn't add myself to uploaders, and
> c) failed to mention that swsusp is now enabled statically in the
> changelog.
> If you
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:25:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> FYI, kernel-image-2.6.7-i386 builds fine w/ these kernel sources, as long
> as CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y (instead of 'm'; the modular swsusp patch is
> broken for 2.6.7). If anyone's interested in the actual packages, I can
> throw
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:32:36 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:31:17 +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
>> [...]
>>> So, William, is it alright if I upload the following to unstable?
>>> http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-source/>
>>> Regards, Jens.
>
> O
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:31:17 +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> [...]
>> So, William, is it alright if I upload the following to unstable?
>> http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-source/>
>> Regards, Jens.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:25:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> FYI, kernel
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:31:17 +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
[...]
>
> So, William, is it alright if I upload the following to unstable?
>
> http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~jens/kernel-source/>
>
> Regards, Jens.
FYI, kernel-image-2.6.7-i386 builds fine w/ these kernel sources, as long
Hi,
Frederik Schueler writes:
> I was updating the kernel packages for amd64, and encountered this
> error:
> No debian/revision file, assuming pristine Linux 2.6.7
Ah crap. This file was called version.Debian before, and I cleverly
renamed it to debian/revision, forgetting that it wouldn't ge
Hi,
I was updating the kernel packages for amd64, and encountered this
error:
athlon:/usr/src/kernel-image-2.6.7-amd64-2.6.7# dpkg-buildpackage -sa
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is kernel-image-2.6.7-amd64
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 2.6.7-1
dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Fr
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:03:23AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> You're already there, sorry -- I looked at the changes file when I should
> have looked at the dsc file.
> -- wli
I just heard you've already tested this on i386 -- please dupload ASAP!
-- wli
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:00:24AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> This is amazing! The only nitpick I have of any kind is that you
> should add yourself to the Uploaders: field (actually, am I in there?
> I didn't see an Uploaders: field at all).
> -- wli
You're already there, sorry -- I lo
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> we had a very productive session in #debian-kernel today, and as a
> result, kernel-source packages are ready for upload to unstable. At
> least that's what I think, having built them from source and tested
> them by using them as
Hi,
we had a very productive session in #debian-kernel today, and as a
result, kernel-source packages are ready for upload to unstable. At
least that's what I think, having built them from source and tested
them by using them as a base for the PowerPC kernel-image packages.
Before I upload to uns
17 matches
Mail list logo
