Daniel Baumann wrote:
> How long until you (or your sponsor) have uploaded it?
It's already uploaded, but in the NEW queue (new binary package names).
See e.g. http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?package=squashfs
bye,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
How long until you (or your sponsor) have uploaded it?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Any news so far?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Hello,
I haven't answer to this bug report because i have discussed about this
one with Daniel on IRC, following this discussion, a mail to the
upstream author has been sent. I will take a look at module packaging
(including m-a) in the next days ;).
Regards,
Arnaud Fontaine
pgpWwyk
Frédéric BOITEUX wrote:
> I've tried to
> workaround using some 'ext2' definitions, checked it works, but if you can
> review it, it would be nice.
I'll look into it too.
> Daniel, Arnaud, if we want to support 2.4, we would give both 2.4 and 2.6
> sources, perhaps in 2 separate packages ?
No,
Hello Daniel, Arnaud, Phillip,
Following Daniel's suggest on Debian bug #34 to be able to build squashfs
without patching kernel, I've tried to do the same thing he's already done for
2.6.15 with the latest 2.4 kernel patch. It's a bit trickier as some
definitions don't exist in vani
Phillip Lougher wrote:
> Adding a directory with the Squashfs files in plain format (rather
> than as patches) to the release tarball is possible. I've had a look
> at [1] and this doesn't look too much extra work. There are a couple
> of issues:
Thanks for your quick answer. When can you releas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Your release-tarball contains "only" the patches against specific
>kernel-versions, but we need the files in 'plain format'. In the first
>attempt[1] to build the debian package for that, I had to rebuild your
>release-tarball. We want to avoid that if possible, so.. wha
Roland Stigge wrote:
> Provide a kind of kernel source stub, apply the upstream patch and our
> new package specific patches/changes. Yes, ugly. Thanks for already
> contacting upstream. :-)
That is uglier than repackaging the orig.tar.gz.
> We need to accept native packages that were not specifi
Hi,
Daniel Baumann wrote:
>>What you are doing is taking upstream's code and adjusting it to
>>out-of-tree compilation. Since you are shipping patches (dpatch ...)
>>anyway, it still seems to be possible to prevent repackaging (which
>>should be tried as far as possible).
>
> No. Atm you have to
Hi,
Debian Live[0] is the initiative to create the official live system for
Debian. It is based on squashfs (and unionfs). As we will (and have to)
use the normal linux-images from the Debian archive, we need to build
the squashfs-module out-of-tree.
Your release-tarball contains "only" the patch
Roland Stigge wrote:
>>Upstream puts just patches for in-tree compiliation in his tarball, we
>>need them separately, for out-of-tree compiliation.
>
> What you are doing is taking upstream's code and adjusting it to
> out-of-tree compilation. Since you are shipping patches (dpatch ...)
> anyway,
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Baumann wrote:
>>>one can't just apply a patch between the current one and my one, to be
>>>able to build it out-of-tree, you have to repackage it (like I did).
>>
>>Why would this be necessary? I would prefer to keep the orig.tar.gz
>>identical to upstream (e.g. in case of new u
Le lun 06 mar 2006 14:51:13 CET, Daniel Baumann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> So you are seriously suggesting to hack a crapped 2.4 support in it
> although that in about 4-5 month, the base system is freezed for etch?
> Hm, I don't think this is worthy when we have m-a to semi-autobuild the
> m
Frédéric BOITEUX wrote:
>> * the modules which are autobuilt are for 2.6 only, etch will likely
>>not ship any 2.4 kernel, so 2.4 autobuilt support would be useless anyway.
>
> mmm. But Etch isn't to be released soon ;-)
So you are seriously suggesting to hack a crapped 2.4 support in it
althoug
Le lun 06 mar 2006 14:15:54 CET, Daniel Baumann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> There is no kernel-patch because we want to build it out-of-tree, not
> in-tree.
Ok, it's a nice goal anyway.
> > Anyway, everybody doesn't use latest kernel version (nor 2.6 kernel), if
> > you
> > want to replace
Roland Stigge wrote:
>>one can't just apply a patch between the current one and my one, to be
>>able to build it out-of-tree, you have to repackage it (like I did).
>
> Why would this be necessary? I would prefer to keep the orig.tar.gz
> identical to upstream (e.g. in case of new upstream release
Frédéric BOITEUX wrote:
> I'm not the official maintener but have worked sometimes on this package and
> using it. I've looked a bit on your package, and seems not to give any
> kernel patch : are they no longer useful for 2.6.15 kernels ?
There is no kernel-patch because we want to build it out
Roland Stigge wrote:
> thanks for your work and sorry for the delay.
np.
> No, please don't do neither. Arnaud is already investigating this issue.
> Please coordinate with him. Maybe your patch can just be applied to the
> current version (Arnaud, please check the diffs carefully because of
> ot
Hi,
Daniel Baumann wrote:
>>No, please don't do neither. Arnaud is already investigating this issue.
>>Please coordinate with him. Maybe your patch can just be applied to the
>>current version (Arnaud, please check the diffs carefully because of
>>other changes like docs etc.).
>
> one can't just
Hello,
Le lun 06 mar 2006 13:19:52 CET, Daniel Baumann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Package: squashfs
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> [ Disclaimer: this mail should not be taken as an offense, I just want
> to get things done quickly. ]
>
> as I wrote you a few days ago, we want t
Hi Daniel,
thanks for your work and sorry for the delay.
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> as I wrote you a few days ago, we want the module packages for squashfs
> autobuilt (needed for Debian Live[0]). As I didn't got any answer so
> far, I made the package[1] on my own. I tested it successfully on amd64
Package: squashfs
Severity: important
Hi,
[ Disclaimer: this mail should not be taken as an offense, I just want
to get things done quickly. ]
as I wrote you a few days ago, we want the module packages for squashfs
autobuilt (needed for Debian Live[0]). As I didn't got any answer so
far, I made
23 matches
Mail list logo
