On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Peter Samuelson writes:
> > ...But it does bring up the question of why intel-microcode and
> > amd64-microcode are not built on kFreeBSD or the Hurd. Maybe those
> > kernels lack a CPU microcode interface?
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/faq/compatib
Hi!
Peter Samuelson writes:
> ...But it does bring up the question of why intel-microcode and
> amd64-microcode are not built on kFreeBSD or the Hurd. Maybe those
> kernels lack a CPU microcode interface?
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/faq/compatibility-processors.html
Though I rather doubt the li
> On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > And an annoying technical detail makes it suboptimal to add the microcode
> > > packages as a recommendation of the firmware-linux-nonfree package.
> > ...which is that dpkg does not support architecture-specific relations
> > in binary
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 8. November 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > And an annoying technical detail makes it suboptimal to add the
microcode
> > packages as a recommendation of the firmware-linux-nonfree package.
> ...which is that dpkg does not support architecture-specific relations
> in binary pack
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 06/11/12 17:05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Still, it did lead me to a possible cause: I am not trying to modprobe
> > "microcode" in the intel-microcode postinst. This can indeed cause the
> > failure to update microcode at p
On 06/11/12 17:05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Still, it did lead me to a possible cause: I am not trying to modprobe
> "microcode" in the intel-microcode postinst. This can indeed cause the
> failure to update microcode at package install time.
>
> I forget why I didn't do it that way
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 02:35 +0200, Adrian Fita wrote:
> On 08/11/12 01:44, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 04:33:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
> >>> Fair enough, but how about having the linux-image packages recommend th
On 08/11/12 01:44, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 04:33:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
>>> Fair enough, but how about having the linux-image packages recommend the
>>> *microcode packages for installation so users won't get
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 04:33:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
> > Fair enough, but how about having the linux-image packages recommend the
> > *microcode packages for installation so users won't get confused by the
> > message caused by the m
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
> Fair enough, but how about having the linux-image packages recommend the
> *microcode packages for installation so users won't get confused by the
> message caused by the module trying to load the file with the microcode
> update and not finding it?
I don'
On 07/11/12 02:50, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
>> My CPU is an AMD Turion(tm)X2 Dual Core Mobile RM-76, cpu family: 17, so
>> it doesn't need the amd64-microcode package which contains microcode
>> updates only for cpu families: 10h - 14h & 15h. But
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> >> > # iucode_tool --scan-system -vv
> >> > iucode_tool: cpuid kernel driver unavailable, cannot scan system
> >> > processor signatures
> >
> > Hmm, that should happen only if iucode-tool is installed/configured af
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
>> > # iucode_tool --scan-system -vv
>> > iucode_tool: cpuid kernel driver unavailable, cannot scan system processor
>> > signatures
>
> Hmm, that should happen only if iucode-tool is installed/configured after
> intel-microcode.
I've seen this message too, du
Dropping users and adding pkg-xen-devel and debian-kernel.
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 15:43 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:12:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >I would like to bring to your attention the improved support for system
> >processor (CPU) microcode
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012, Adrian Fita wrote:
> My CPU is an AMD Turion(tm)X2 Dual Core Mobile RM-76, cpu family: 17, so
> it doesn't need the amd64-microcode package which contains microcode
> updates only for cpu families: 10h - 14h & 15h. But the microcode kernel
Family 17 (decimal) is family 11h (he
On 05/11/12 22:12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to bring to your attention the improved support for system
> processor (CPU) microcode updates, for x86/i686/x86-64/amd64 systems
> that was recently added to [non-free] Wheezy.
>
> System Processors from Intel an
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:12:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >I would like to bring to your attention the improved support for system
> >processor (CPU) microcode updates, for x86/i686/x86-64/amd64 systems
> >that was recently added to [
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:12:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Microcode updates will be applied immediately when the microcode
> > packages are installed or updated: you don't have to reboot. You will
> > have to keep the packages instal
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:12:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I would like to bring to your attention the improved support for system
processor (CPU) microcode updates, for x86/i686/x86-64/amd64 systems
that was recently added to [non-free] Wheezy.
Alas, this will not work for XE
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:12:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Microcode updates will be applied immediately when the microcode
> packages are installed or updated: you don't have to reboot. You will
> have to keep the packages installed, though: as explained above, the
> microcode
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:10:37AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> I saw the name and initially thought it was related to blender.
[...]
It struck me as a coffee reference, since the term often gets used
to describe blends of coffee beans from the same region. Then again,
perhaps I drink too much coffee
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 13:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>>> I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
>>> unchanged Debian mirrors?
>> Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A D
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
to avoid such things, especially with defining naming terminology for
things that covers such broad aspects of debian, a poll on your
sub-project only mailinglists is probably not enough, and imho at least
one of either d-devel or d-project should be CC
Andreas Tille wrote:
> Your remark above just ignores that the concept tries to profit from
> synergies inside these projects which for instance are reflected in
> these tasks or bugs pages, a common technique to build metapackages etc.
that's not my point; my point is that i don't see why a bunch
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.
I saw the name and initially thought it was related to blender.
http://www.blender.org/
Brian May
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Le Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:51:05PM +, Neil Williams a écrit :
> That is where I found "Blends" confusing - it conjures up images of
> mixing two different things into one.
This tempts me a lot to mix stable and backports.debian.org (once it exists) in
our shiny new blender :)
By the way, I re
2008/11/10 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> that I don't particurally like the game, but if it has been voted and
s/game/name/
Sorry,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure that I like the new name, to be honest.
>
> Well, the renaming was announced on debian-custom list and all lists
> of existing CDDs (also for instance on Debian Junior list[1]). And,
>
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 13:28 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
> > unchanged Debian mirrors?
>
> Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
> Pure Blend has
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
so then call them 'Debian Foo' team, since this is what they are and no
different to the various teams we have already (where some of them are
not limited being 100% packaging oriented; e.g. kde team that releases
livecds).
Strangely enough people are
Andreas Tille wrote:
> Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
> Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept.
so then call them 'Debian Foo' team, since this is what they are and no
different to the various teams we have already (where s
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
I guess what are talking about here is the mirrors. Do all Blends use
unchanged Debian mirrors?
Yes. What else would you expect if it says _inside_ Debian? A Debian
Pure Blend has no separate mirror - THIS is the basic idea of the concept.
If so, w
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.
>
> Actually "distribution" was the worst part of the old name.
ok
> Before we have another round of discussing names:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
I was never particularly clear on why "Custom" was a bad name to use.
Actually "distribution" was the worst part of the old name.
Before we have another round of discussing names: Could everybody
who is really interested in the projects please have a
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm confused by the new name - what are we blending and why confuse
> "Pure" and "Blend" in the same name?
>
> Emdebian is a customised Debian too - we will have two flavours soon, a
> functionally-identical but smaller De
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
else than Debian was to "obvious" if people did not read the relevant
documentation. So we finally found a raw con
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
What does "raw consensus" mean here? It doesn't seem to be an existing
English idiom... :-) [Maybe you meant "rough", I don't know.]
Yes, sorry - I intended to writh rough (perhaps I should ask co authors
for announcements next time).
In practice the
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Renaming Custom Debian Distributions to Debian Pure Blend
- -
[3] http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/blends
^^^
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 11:53 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
> > the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
> > else than Debian was to "obvious" if peop
2008/11/10 Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We realised that the old name Custom Debian Distributions just sended
> the wrong message to outsiders: The conclusion that CDDs are something
> else than Debian was to "obvious" if people did not read the relevant
> documentation. So we finally fou
* Andreas Tille [Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:26:46 +0100]:
> Hello,
Hi Andreas,
> So we finally found a raw consensus for a new name:
> Debian Pure Blends
What does "raw consensus" mean here? It doesn't seem to be an existing
English idiom... :-) [Maybe you meant "rough", I don't know.]
Chee
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Renaming Custom Debian Distributions to Debian Pure Blend
> - -
> [3] http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/blends
^^^
.oO( Have you thought about renaming the
[ Reply-To: set to debian-cd list ]
Hi Julian,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:17:46PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>Dear Debian Developers (and other readers),
>
>debimg will be a free alternative to debian-cd, written
>in Python.
I hope you're not meaning to imply that debian-cd itself is _not
On Friday 02 December 2005 14.13, Kevin Locke wrote:
> Would it be better to spend our time adding features to the Gnome Power
> Manager and equivalents instead of creating a separate program?
The problem here is the *Gnome and equivalents*. IMHO any work spent to
extend the functionality of the
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nobody said the user can't give his input on how the service will behave.
> > That's what the GUI is for, and what configuration files are for.
>
> The user needs to be able to configure this w
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody said the user can't give his input on how the service will behave.
> That's what the GUI is for, and what configuration files are for.
The user needs to be able to configure this without any form of
excessive privileges, which means
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. power management is system infrastructure. I can explain WHY it
> > is so, but I don't think many people would argue that power
> > management is an user-level service.
>
>
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. power management is system infrastructure. I can explain WHY it
> is so, but I don't think many people would argue that power
> management is an user-level service.
Whether a laptop suspends when you close the lid is a per-
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. I wasn't aware to what extent HAL is able to notify
> programs about power-related events. In fact, we had briefly discussed
> receiving events from HAL in addition to the power-daemons. Perhaps
> with some work, we would be able to rely com
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Kevin Locke wrote:
> What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts about the value of a daemon to
> invoke scripts based on the power-related HAL events? Is this
> unnecessary given the function of the GNOME Power Manager and
> equivalents, or would it have enough value to be wort
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I realize that the
> GNOME Power Manager[1], and likely a KDE equivalent, already handles
> several of the tasks normally associated with power-management, so
> perhaps there is no need for another program to be handling events.
>
> What are your (
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 10:47 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fundamentally, our goal is to create an architecture-independent,
> > power-system-independent, and power-daemon-independent system to handle
> > power-related events (e.g. lid close, battery
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I tell HAL to just handle power management instead of touching anything
> else, and get it to do the right thing in a headless, GUIless server
> environment? Can I do that with standard, system-wide configuration files?
HAL on its own
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> To a large extent, this sort of work is currently being done in HAL. Is
> there any need to create another level of abstraction, or should we just
> work on that? It also sounds (though I'm not certain) like you're
Can I tell HAL to just handle power m
Kevin Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fundamentally, our goal is to create an architecture-independent,
> power-system-independent, and power-daemon-independent system to handle
> power-related events (e.g. lid close, battery events). This will likely
> happen by hooks from the power daemons (
Adrian Bridgett writes:
> > I think it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually, but I'm not sure; I
> > only occasionally get mail to it -- all of it inappropriate
> > (everything I've gotten to xbase@<> in particular should have either
> > gone to debian-user or to [EMAIL PROTECTED], mostly the latter...)
On Sun, Dec 07, 1997 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> > (@debian.org??) I'll raise something I thought about a while
>
> I think it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually, but I'm not sure; I
> only occasionally get mail to it -- all of it inappropriate
> (everything I've gotten to xbase@<> in p
Hi,
Also, there are packages that watch URL's, I think (lurkftp
does a nice job for ftp sites). I'm sure there is one for other url's
as well (can be easy to write one using LWP)
manoj
--
"Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other. Perhaps
they should live ne
> (@debian.org??) I'll raise something I thought about a while
I think it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually, but I'm not sure; I
only occasionally get mail to it -- all of it inappropriate
(everything I've gotten to xbase@<> in particular should have either
gone to debian-user or to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hallo Ian Murdock!
}Should I add anything (for example, about the mirror problems) to the
}announcement? Here is what I have thus far. I want to send it in a
}few hours, so please speak now or forever (or until the next release,
Apart from the text, I think this is not a good idea as some of us
I checked all the mirrors earlier this evening. I removed the ones
(at least for the moment) that are incomplete (i.e., not mirroring
all of the archive), incorrect, and outdated. You can find this in
/debian/README.mirrors.
Before you start displaying it from ftpd, I'll trim it down slightly.
A
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Should I add anything (for example, about the mirror problems) to the
> announcement? Here is what I have thus far. I want to send it in a
> few hours, so please speak now or forever (or until the next release,
> whichever comes first) hold your peace.
>
It looks fine to me. Go for it!
Thanks
Bruce
63 matches
Mail list logo
