Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:35:17AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla
Hello,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:35:17AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >>> I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
> >>> Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
> >>>
> >> The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
> >>
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches.
I hope to be abl
Hi,
>>> I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
>>> Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
>>>
>> The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
>> conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches.
>> I hope to be able to clean that up
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches.
I hope to be able to c
Hello,
> I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
> Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches.
I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in
Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice.
The patch I created that "fits" on Debian's vanilla kernel creates
conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches.
I hope to be able to c
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
[your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than
your's]
To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and
is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package
linux-2.6
Maybe providing a p
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:22:02AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Uwe Kleine-König schrieb:
>
> > [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than
> > your's]
>
> Well, at least it reached me ;)
>
> >>> Maybe providing a patch package is
Hi!
Uwe Kleine-König schrieb:
> [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than
> your's]
Well, at least it reached me ;)
>>> Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step?
>> thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package?
> I can. I'd need a spon
Hello,
[your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than
your's]
>>> To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and
>>> is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package
>>> linux-2.6
>>>
>> Maybe providing a patch package is a be
Hello,
>>> I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a
>>> stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from
>>> their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes.
>>> Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for
>>> user
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a
stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from
their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes.
Please do not advertise testing as a release which is read
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote:
debian stable aims to production servers,
That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your
arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like
Openoffice.org or audio players o
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote:
debian stable aims to production servers,
That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your
arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like
Openoffice.org or audio players or ...
IMO multimedia us
2009/3/28 Andreas Tille
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote:
>
> debian stable aims to production servers,
>>
>
> That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your
> arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like
> Openoffice.org or audio players or ...
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote:
debian stable aims to production servers,
That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your
arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like
Openoffice.org or audio players or ...
IMO multimedia users can/should live wi
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:15:38PM +0100, Cassiel wrote:
> debian stable aims to production servers, IMO multimedia users can/should
> live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates.
Just to note a different type of target audience: a PBX such as
Asterisk. In this case
2009/3/28 Grammostola Rosea
>
>>
> I asked an guy who did some work on the RT kernel for Ubuntu. This is what
> he said:
>
> 1) Ubuntu RT kernel don't offer the same guarantees that offer one of
>> the Debian kernels. For example DOS vulnerabilities are accepted into
>> Ubuntu RT Kernel (because
Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian?
What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may
not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the
benefit of FF
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> > >> Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian?
> > What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may
> > not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the
> > benefit of FFADO users. In the
Grammostola Rosea writes:
> Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices,
> the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for?
Debian as a whole probably not. However interested contributors are
strongly encouraged to help the debian kernel maintainers to integrate
that patc
Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote:
Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on
Debian
(e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am
sure
their teams may be interested in helping to support it too.
IMHO it makes perfectly se
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote:
Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on Debian
(e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am sure
their teams may be interested in helping to support it too.
IMHO it makes perfectly sense to try to join force
> I think 95% of the users of the linuxaudio.org community (LAU mailinglist)
> uses a realtime kernel (CONFIG_HZ_1000 + Mingo patch (!?)). Discussion if
> it is still needed bumps up there once in a while, for example:
>
> http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lau/2009/3/10/153190
>
>
> But till now pe
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two
quotes,
"real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any fe
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my
>> customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other
>> customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer
>> serial overrun and I must e
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Do you really need real time kernel?
Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
"real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel i
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Do you really need real time kernel?
> Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes,
> "real time" is used as marketing thing.
It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is
certainly very usef
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Jim wrote:
Grammostola Rosea,
I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the
possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having
low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian
folks (especially "waldi" aka Basti
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Grammostola Rosea
wrote:
> Mmh this is interesting, cause there is an realtime kernel available in the
> ubuntu hardy repo, but not in Debian yet. Would be nice if there was one
> which users could install. But I'm not an rt-kernel expert at all, so maybe
> I shou
31 matches
Mail list logo
