Hi Martin,
On Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> Okay, that makes sense. How do I get the patched source? The
> accepted standard methods (see policy 4.9 and 4.14) don't reveal
> anything and don't work:
according to http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPack
severity 509156 wishlist
thanks
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:43:59PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> This makes kernel packaging not policy-compliant, thus I am cloning
> this bug and making it RC.
Not a must-clause nor does the kernel list compatibility with they
newest policy version which added
clone 506419 -1
retitle -1 kernel debian/rules misses patch instructions and target
severity -1 serious
thanks
also sprach martin f krafft [2008.12.10.2027 +0100]:
> Okay, that makes sense. How do I get the patched source? The
> accepted standard methods (see policy 4.9 and 4.14) don't reveal
> a
also sprach Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.10.1541 +0100]:
> You managed to get the _unpatched_ source. The patches are applied
> during the build:
Okay, that makes sense. How do I get the patched source? The
accepted standard methods (see policy 4.9 and 4.14) don't reveal
anything and
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:23:30PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.10.0005 +0100]:
> > > No, I made it against 2.6.26-11, for no other reason that it was in
> > > Debian unstable at the time, and I had given up hope for targetting
> > > lenny b
also sprach Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.10.0005 +0100]:
> > No, I made it against 2.6.26-11, for no other reason that it was in
> > Debian unstable at the time, and I had given up hope for targetting
> > lenny before. I'd be happy to create a patch against -10 instead.
>
> No, you d
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1154 +0100]:
> The attached patch against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 seems to fix the
> original problem for me, [...]
I just saw another gso-related kernel trace, even with the new
driver. :/
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:57:19PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1758 +0100]:
> > > My patch does no "apply", it was made against 2.6.26-11 --
> > > Supermicro just sent me their forcedeth.c and I made the patch.
> > Probably against the unpa
also sprach Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1758 +0100]:
> > My patch does no "apply", it was made against 2.6.26-11 --
> > Supermicro just sent me their forcedeth.c and I made the patch.
>
> Probably against the unpatched 2.6.26 then? OK, that will explain the
> similarities. But the
* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-09 15:06]:
> > In fact, I'm a little confused as to the reasons that patch is in
> > Debian. It is probably the correct thing to do, but it is also the kind
> > of thing that is bound to cause regressions because it will expose
> > latent bugs in driver
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1413 +0100]:
>> This should not apply against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 since it is already a
>> part of debian/patches/bugfix/all/stable/2.6.26.4.patch. Are you sure
>> your patch really does apply? If
also sprach Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1413 +0100]:
> This should not apply against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 since it is already a
> part of debian/patches/bugfix/all/stable/2.6.26.4.patch. Are you sure
> your patch really does apply? If it does, then I'd suggest trying
> *just* edcfe5f
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:13:36PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> BTW, I also noticed that linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 includes the patch
> linux-2.6-2.6.26/debian/patches/features/all/net-use-gso.patch
> which very well may trigger the problem. You might also want to try
> building without that patch.
>
>
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 seems to fix the
> original problem for me, but I have not had a chance to verify the
> second ('downstream') problem I identified in the bug report.
>
> The patch is based on the driver source I obtained
also sprach Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.12.09.1211 +0100]:
> This is no patch which suffice our guidelines. Please show
> submittions to the Linux maintainers and/or commit ids.
As stated in my message, I don't have the time to do this right now,
but I will try to get Transtec/Supermic
tags 506419 -patch
thanks
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:54:03AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> The attached patch against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 seems to fix the
> original problem for me, but I have not had a chance to verify the
> second ('downstream') problem I identified in the bug report.
This is
16 matches
Mail list logo
