On dim, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If you choose to unsubscribe from
> > debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the
> kernel
> > team is doing.
>
> wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
> communicating to ot
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If you choose to unsubscribe from
> > debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
> > team is doing.
>
> wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
> communicating to othe
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If you choose to unsubscribe from
> debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
> team is doing.
wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
communicating to other teams about stuff that is critical for them. if
you maintain such a c
* Ben Hutchings (b...@decadent.org.uk) [091018 20:17]:
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
Alpha is no longer an release architecture, so I doubt that the
release team would care.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 22:56 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> where was this discussed?
> >
> > Bug report #517130
>
> which is one single message, not a discussion.
>
> > and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
>
> in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
It w
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> where was this discussed?
>
> Bug report #517130
which is one single message, not a discussion.
> and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
>> how will be binary modules provided in the future?
>
> In general they should
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 21:55 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I'll be requesting removal of
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
>
> where was this discussed?
Bug report #517130 and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
> how will be binary modules pro
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:34:05PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings [2009-10-18 19:17]:
> > There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> > somehow.
>
> Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
> 2.6.30 upload to fix alpha sinc
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'll be requesting removal of
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
where was this discussed? how will be binary modules provided in the
future? why was debian-live not informed about it, it's critical part of
the distribution for building live images.
--
Addr
* Ben Hutchings [2009-10-18 19:17]:
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
2.6.30 upload to fix alpha since it's being dropped from testing
anyway.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyri
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
will disable that stupid snd driver on alpha.
> I also need to add a conflict to firmware-linux-nonfree.
> Other than that I think we're ready t
Linux 2.6.31 seems to be in fairly good shape now. I have updated
linux-kbuild-2.6 to 2.6.31.2 and refreshed firmware-linux-nonfree from
the linux-firmware repository. I'll be requesting removal of
linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
Also, the stable series 2.6.30.y has now ended.
12 matches
Mail list logo
