On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Pierre Habouzit (madcoder@debian.org) [080707 19:48]:
> > > > > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> > > > > so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> > > > > and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
> > > > > opposed to it. Note that the asm/page.h mess is still not fixed thanks
> > > > > to hppa.
> > > > >
> > > > > Disclaimer: it's my own opinion, I did not check what other Release Team
> > > > > member think about this.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you, at least with my current informations.
> > >
> > > please read the changelog trunk on all the 2.6.26 fixes.
> >
> > Huh, that's not really our work, you as the maintainer should help us
> > understand why we would like to deal with 3 months of FTBFS *right now*.
> > Not to mention the libata changes fjp talks about, that would probably
> > break many upgrades and for which there is no known solution.
>
> right so the 2.6.26 summary:
> * closes 50 bugs on upload (mostly 2.6.25 regressions)

I'm really afraid with the number of bugs it'll open though.

> * has upstream coordination with xen and openvz

Does this mean that dom0 will work with .26 ? If yes, then maybe .26
is really worth considering. If not, this is quite moot.

> * is the first version with kernel debugger
> * much better laptop support (wireless, uvc,..)
> * kvm ported to IA64, PPC and S390

> > > we have allways stated that .26 will be the release kernel.
> >
> > The sole mail from the kernel team that I can find is[0]. We've seen
> > no updates from you since AFAICT. Given the content of the mail, and its
> > age, I don't see how we can know that.
>
> right to debian-release that was the last time we got asked to give a
> statement. in discussion on d-kernel and with d-boot we allways stated
> to work on 2.6.26 for Lenny.

Well, we did asked for updates from core teams in our mails to d-d-a
numerous times without our prior nagging, which was clearly meant to
avoid this kind of communication issues.

For the rest I assume the release team will have to discuss things a
bit further.

> > [1] e.g. have you done full scale archive rebuilds to show that a new
> > linux-libc-dev won't at least cause dozens of FTBFS like the
> > 2.6.25 did ?
>
> there are statements from waldi and vorlon to consider the 2.6.25
> linux-libc-dev status as frozen.

Well, that's a sine qua non condition. L-L-Dev breakages are horrible,
and we just cannot aford one. It does not mean that I consider .26 to be
a clever idea right now, but a l-l-d breakage would be a plain no-go.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:27:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > * Pierre Habouzit (madcoder@debian.org) [080707 19:48]:
> > > > > > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> > > > > > so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> > > > > > and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
> > > > > > opposed to it. Note that the asm/page.h mess is still not fixed thanks
> > > > > > to hppa.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Disclaimer: it's my own opinion, I did not check what other Release Team
> > > > > > member think about this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with you, at least with my current informations.
> > > >
> > > > please read the changelog trunk on all the 2.6.26 fixes.
> > >
> > > Huh, that's not really our work, you as the maintainer should help us
> > > understand why we would like to deal with 3 months of FTBFS *right now*.
> > > Not to mention the libata changes fjp talks about, that would probably
> > > break many upgrades and for which there is no known solution.
> >
> > right so the 2.6.26 summary:
> > * closes 50 bugs on upload (mostly 2.6.25 regressions)
>
> I'm really afraid with the number of bugs it'll open though.

upstream has much better control of it thanks to kernelopps,
random .config boot tests and regression handling.

> > * has upstream coordination with xen and openvz
>
> Does this mean that dom0 will work with .26 ? If yes, then maybe .26
> is really worth considering. If not, this is quite moot.

we get snapshot working, that is *important* for guest.
otherwise you would not be able to migrate your debian guest.

and please don't dismiss openvz, which is the new emerging namespace
solution that has more features then vserver and works actively on
upstream merge. we have worked together with openvz devs to have
.26 openvz images.

> > * is the first version with kernel debugger
> > * much better laptop support (wireless, uvc,..)
> > * kvm ported to IA64, PPC and S390

of course a lot of fixes and forgot to mention the
* Read-only bind mounts

which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.

> > > > we have allways stated that .26 will be the release kernel.
> > >
> > > The sole mail from the kernel team that I can find is[0]. We've seen
> > > no updates from you since AFAICT. Given the content of the mail, and its
> > > age, I don't see how we can know that.
> >
> > right to debian-release that was the last time we got asked to give a
> > statement. in discussion on d-kernel and with d-boot we allways stated
> > to work on 2.6.26 for Lenny.
>
> Well, we did asked for updates from core teams in our mails to d-d-a
> numerous times without our prior nagging, which was clearly meant to
> avoid this kind of communication issues.
>
> For the rest I assume the release team will have to discuss things a
> bit further.

okay sorry for having not catched that.

> > > [1] e.g. have you done full scale archive rebuilds to show that a new
> > > linux-libc-dev won't at least cause dozens of FTBFS like the
> > > 2.6.25 did ?
> >
> > there are statements from waldi and vorlon to consider the 2.6.25
> > linux-libc-dev status as frozen.
>
> Well, that's a sine qua non condition. L-L-Dev breakages are horrible,
> and we just cannot aford one. It does not mean that I consider .26 to be
> a clever idea right now, but a l-l-d breakage would be a plain no-go.

sure fully agreeed.

--
maks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

maximilian attems wrote:
> * Read-only bind mounts
>
> which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
do it easily without new kernel.

My 2 cents, only.

Regards,
Eugene V. Lyubimkin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhzfLUACgkQchorMMFUmYwwOACgwTTcdSiNuJ iko0tT+mG8seHc
APgAnRSe2822LNilSH8Yfohmq4APr2O6
=GI4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:41:57PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> maximilian attems wrote:
> > * Read-only bind mounts
> >
> > which can come in really handy for chroots and buildd.
> JFYI: recently 'bindfs' package was uploaded to Debian archive, it can
> do it easily without new kernel.

not at vfs level.

--
maks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Daniel Dickinson <cshore@fionavar.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:15:14 +0200
> maximilian attems <max@stro.at> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > When a new stable *is* uploaded, D-I should be able to switch
>> > faster too (at least, if there's someone willing to do the initial
>> > kernel-wedge work) as the main criterium for D-I to switch to a new
>> > kernel version is: does the new version look about to be ready to
>> > migrate to testing, which current early uploads of the kernel to
>> > unstable effectively never are.
>>
>> <sarcastic mode on>
>> never seen that, d-i has always been dragging.
>> <sarcastic mode off>
>
> As a poor simple user, this seems mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but isn't it the case that d-i quickly comes out once a kernel is in
> *testing* so the problem with "d-i dragging" is really that the kernel
> team doesn't support testing only unstable (from the sounds of it). I
> mean in another email max says that testing is on an unsupported
> kernel. WTF. .24 isn't that old and I'm not sure if .25 is even in
> testing yet (when I last checked it wasn't).

For d-i matters if the kernel is ready (or almost ready) to migrate to
testing since it's very problematic for us to break user installation
using daily images during the Debian kernel stabilization effort that,
today, is done in unstable.

Testing kernel, nowadays, is indeed unsupported since to update it is
much harder and risk since the kernel doesn't have a period of time on
unstable (it needs to go throught testing-proposed-updates) before
hitting testing.

What we're proposing is a change on that. Leaving those first uploads
some time on experimental and then moving to unstable when major
problems were solve (as is done in many other teams as Xorg, KDE,
GNOME, ...) and then reducing the time required for the kernel to
migrate from unstable to testing.

Doing that, it would allow us to move d-i much fastly to the unstable
kernel since we'd be in a much safe bed.

--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

* Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
>
> hint added.

Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > > about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
> > hint added.
> Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
> grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.

Because linux-modules-contrib-2.6 is not ready.

Bastian

--
Each kiss is as the first.
-- Miramanee, Kirk's wife, "The Paradise Syndrome",
stardate 4842.6


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:58AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [2008-07-07 23:31]:
> > > > No objection in allowing 2.6.25 to go to testing but please hold on
> > > > about uploading 2.6.26 until RM team acks on it.
> > > hint added.
> > Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
> > grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.
>
> Because linux-modules-contrib-2.6 is not ready.

shouldn't that be ignored!?

--
maks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi,

On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Do you know why it hasn't moved to testing yet? The output of
> > grep-excuses doesn't mean anything to me in this case.
> Because linux-modules-contrib-2.6 is not ready.

How is a package in contrib holding up a package in main?


regards,
Holger

Hi Aurelien,

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

> - The switch to linux-libc-dev 2.6.25 is the reason why glibc currently
> FTBFS on hppa (due to a timeout in a test). Unfortunately I don't know
> yet which change causes the problem, I am down to a 600 lines diff.

Have you gotten any closer to finding the cause of this regression?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org