Bug#1081414: ITP: kleidiai -- open-source library that provides optimized micro-kernels for AI workloads for Arm CPUs

: Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: C Description : open-source library that provides optimized micro-kernels for AI workloads for Arm CPUs KleidiAI is an open-source library that provides optimized performance-critical routines, also known as micro-kernels, for artificial intelligence (AI) workloads

Bug#1064257: ITP: rocm-tensile -- ROCm tool for generating and benchmarking assembly kernels

Lang: Python, HIP Description : ROCm tool for generating and benchmarking assembly kernels Tensile is a set of tools and libraries primarily for selecting parameters of GPU kernels implementing the general matrix multiply (GEMM) operation. There are three components that comprise Tensile

Bug#1049961: ITP: composable-kernel -- library for writing performance critical kernels for ML workloads

/composable_kernel * License : MIT Programming Lang: C++ Description : library for writing performance critical kernels for ML workloads Composable Kernel (CK) library aims to provide a programming model for writing performance critical kernels for machine learning workloads across multiple

Bug#1036125: ITP: virtme-ng -- Build and run specific kernels inside a virtualized snapshot of your live system

-2.0 Programming Lang: Python Description : Build and run specific kernels inside a virtualized snapshot of your live system virtme-ng is a tool that allows to setup a lab to experiment different kernel versions in a safe virtualized environment, re-using the entire filesystem of the

Bug#1001228: ITP: jupyter-kernel-test -- tool to test Jupyter kernels

://github.com/jupyter/jupyter_kernel_test * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python Description : tool to test Jupyter kernels jupyter_kernel_test is a tool for testing Jupyter kernels. It tests kernels for successful code execution and conformance with the Jupyter Messaging Protocol

Bug#918607: ITP: kthresher -- Purge Unused Kernels

Unused Kernels Tool to remove unused kernels that were installed automatically This tool removes those kernel packages marked as candidate for autoremoval. Those packages are generally installed via Unattended upgrade or meta-packages. By default the latest kernel and manual installations are marked

Bug#905360: ITP: spyder-kernels -- Jupyter kernels for the Spyder console

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: System User * Package name: spyder-kernels Version : 1.0.1 Upstream Author : Spyder IDE * URL : https://www.spyder-ide.org/ * License : Expat Programming Lang: Python Description : Jupyter kernels for the Spyder

Bug#840509: ITP: python-gimmik -- generator of matrix multiplication kernels

: generator of matrix multiplication kernels Long-Description: GiMMiK is a Python based kernel generator for matrix multiplication kernels for various accelerator platforms. For small operator matrices the generated kernels are capable of outperfoming the state-of-the-art general matrix multiplication

Bug#836867: ITP: sicherboot -- Installs systemd-boot and kernels to ESP, signed for secure boot

: Installs systemd-boot and kernels to ESP, signed for secure boot sicherboot manages kernels and systemd-boot on a secure boot machine. It installs kernels and systemd-boot, generates signing keys to enroll in the machine, and signs the kernels and the bootloader with it. . The keys used to sign

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 23:00 +0100, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > On 27/10/2015 10:31, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > Hm, kernel.org says that 3.18 is the long-term support kernel. > > > > I'm afraid that LTS from kernel.org != stable support from Debian. > > > > Debian typically picks a single kernel versio

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On 27/10/2015 10:31, Ian Campbell wrote: >> Hm, kernel.org says that 3.18 is the long-term support kernel. > > I'm afraid that LTS from kernel.org != stable support from Debian. > > Debian typically picks a single kernel version for a stable release and > supports it for the lifetime of that rele

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Mon, 2015-10-26 at 14:55 +0100, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > On 2015-10-25 07:11, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:59:47PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > On 24/10/15 22:17, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > > > > I would be happy to. However it does not allow me to use the latest > > > >

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

$ apt-get source linux-image-3.2.0-4-686-pae; cd linux-3.2.35 $ fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_i386_none_686-pae which assures that all Debian-specific patches are applied on the top of vanilla kernel. I am not sure if that is still preferable for latest kernels. -- With best regards, Dmitry

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:59:47PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 24/10/15 22:17, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > > I would be happy to. However it does not allow me to use the latest > > kernel from 3.x branch (3.16 is now 1 year old). > > All Debian stable releases are intended to be used with the la

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

" to get the latest one >> from sid. > > I would be happy to. However it does not allow me to use the latest > kernel from 3.x branch (3.16 is now 1 year old). There is no difference in stability or level of support between 2.6.x, 3.x and 4.x kernels: they are not "branches

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

ux/ >> >> Thanks, James! I tried to search for "linux-image" but it finds >> only kernels from squeeze and wheezy repos: >> >>> https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=linux-image > >>> >

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:47:39AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > I am not the OP but want to offer two suggestions. > 1) In cases like this where the number of hits are large, show results > from current stable version onwards. That is instead of presenting > results from squeeze, wheezy etc.

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 01:02:09AM +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: >> Thanks, James! I tried to search for "linux-image" but it finds only >> kernels from squeeze and wheezy repos: >> >> > https://p

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

"linux-image" but it finds only > kernels from squeeze and wheezy repos: > > > https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=linux-image I think this was already mentioned, but since the search generated too many results, only the

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 01:02:09AM +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > Thanks, James! I tried to search for "linux-image" but it finds only > kernels from squeeze and wheezy repos: > > > https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&key

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

On 23/10/2015 22:43, James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 12:35 +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: >> Dear Debian developers, >> >> I wonder if somebody knows what are the plans for packaging >> kernels 3.18.x and 4.2.x? 3.18 was released long time ago,

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

Dmitry Katsubo writes: > I wonder if somebody knows what are the plans for packaging kernels > 3.18.x and 4.2.x? 3.18 was released long time ago, and I think it is > mature. 4.2.x would be nice to play with. I have searched here: >> https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

Hi Dmitry, On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:35:47 +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > I wonder if somebody knows what are the plans for packaging kernels > 3.18.x and 4.2.x? 3.18 was released long time ago, and I think it is > mature. 4.2.x would be nice to play with. I have searched here: >

Re: Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

Hi, On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 12:35 +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > Dear Debian developers, > > I wonder if somebody knows what are the plans for packaging kernels > 3.18.x and 4.2.x? 3.18 was released long time ago, and I think it is > mature. 4.2.x would be nice to play with. I hav

Linux kernels v3.18.x and v4.2.x in sid

Dear Debian developers, I wonder if somebody knows what are the plans for packaging kernels 3.18.x and 4.2.x? 3.18 was released long time ago, and I think it is mature. 4.2.x would be nice to play with. I have searched here: > https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=all&searchon=names&a

Processed: Re: Bug#699656: general: System freezes while using multimedia via DRI [Intel 82865G chip] on kernels above 3.2.0-3-686-pae

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 699656 src:linux Bug #699656 [general] general: System freezes while using multimedia via DRI [Intel 82865G chip] on kernels above 3.2.0-3-686-pae Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'src:linux'. Ignoring

Bug#699656: general: System freezes while using multimedia via DRI [Intel 82865G chip] on kernels above 3.2.0-3-686-pae

reassign 699656 src:linux forcemerge 693083 699656 thanks Quoting marc (marc_sm...@gmx.com): > I already reported this bug for the previous version of kernel [bug report > #693083], but the problem is still unsolved.++ Hello, As #693083 is still opened, I fail to see why you're opening yet anot

Bug#699656: general: System freezes while using multimedia via DRI [Intel 82865G chip] on kernels above 3.2.0-3-686-pae

Package: general Severity: critical Justification: breaks the whole system Dear developers, Almost everytime [it happens randomly] I try to see some video content via DRI [VLC/XBMC, etc] on kernels with version higher than 3.2.0-3-686-pae the whole system freeze [screen goes black, system is

Re: dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:26:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Recent releases of udev depend on signalfd(2), so squeeze will require > at least a 2.6.22 kernel. > The mechanism used for the etch to lenny upgrade is still in place, so > hopefully it will work again. > > I suppose that the release

Re: dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22

m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: Hi Marco, > libsane maintainer: you can now remove the rules related to > SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device" (old style /dev/bus/usb/). Thanks, will do. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - Public key available on - KeyI

Re: dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22

On Oct 04, Neil Roeth wrote: > Good timing, I just ran into this. :-) What is the "mechanism used for etch > to lenny upgrade"? How does it resolve the issue? It does not, but it makes sure that if udev is being upgraded then an acceptable kernel is being installed. Look at preinst. -- ciao,

dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22

On Oct 4, Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) wrote: > Recent releases of udev depend on signalfd(2), so squeeze will require > at least a 2.6.22 kernel. > The mechanism used for the etch to lenny upgrade is still in place, so > hopefully it will work again. Good timing, I just ran into this. :-) W

dropping support for kernels < 2.6.22

Recent releases of udev depend on signalfd(2), so squeeze will require at least a 2.6.22 kernel. The mechanism used for the etch to lenny upgrade is still in place, so hopefully it will work again. I suppose that the release notes will need to be updated. The udev package in unstable does not ref

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Sorry for re-triggering an old thread, On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 21:07:29 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > > > [..] > > David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp > > because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git a

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Hi David, On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 21:07:29 +0100 David Paleino wrote: > I prepared a package with an updated LRMI: > > http://alioth.debian.org/~hanska-guest/apt/unstable/libx86_1.1+ds1-3.dsc > > All the people involved: would you please testbuild your packages against it? > Thank you. Sorry that I

Bug#521895: ITP: rt-tests -- Test programs for rt kernels

: GPL-2 Programming Lang: C Description : Test programs for rt kernels rt-tests contains a set of programs that test and measure various components of "realtime" kernel behavior, such as timer latency, signal latency and the functioning of priority-inheritance mutexes. -- To U

Bug#521893: ITP: linux-patch-preemptrt -- The CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT Patch Sets for various Debian kernels

: The CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT Patch Sets for various Debian kernels This patch allows nearly all of the kernel to be preempted, with the exception of a few very small regions of code. The goal of these patch sets is to guarantee an upper bound for the system's latencies. It's interesting e.g. for

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Hi! On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h}, > > today Lucas has reported #518725 - atitvout FTBFS because of missing > *_MASK defines. > Seeing that bug and remembering fun with lrmi myself, I thought I can > have a look ho

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:07:29PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > Matthew: since you're libx86 upstream, you might be interested in the contents > of debian/patches, I'll remove those as soon as you release a new version > (also, please drop debian/ from upstream tarballs) Thanks, I'll take a look

Using libx86/x86emu also on x86 (was: Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86)

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:34:12 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:24:22 +0100 David Paleino wrote: > > > [.. regarding libx86 ..] > > May I throw in the fact that one sometimes wants x86emu on i386? Yes, I *do* remember your bugreport about it ;) (apropos: sorry if I didn't even re

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > [..] > David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp > because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at > http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in > favour of not build duplicate code.

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:24:22 +0100 David Paleino wrote: > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:19:47 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > > > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > David Paleino wrote: > > > > > > >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant >

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:19:47 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > David Paleino wrote: > > > > >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant > > >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown. > > > > I'm not sure w

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Please don't break threads ;) On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > David Paleino wrote: > > >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant > >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown. > > I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86? IMV

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

David Paleino wrote: >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown. I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86? liblrmi would leave you stuck with x86, whereas using libx86 means that much of the code will also work o

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Evgeni Golov wrote: >On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:17:44 + Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and >> >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times? >> >> You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know... > >The patch for w

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Dear debian-devel, > dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h}, Hello Evgeni, thanks for this heads up. > [..] > The following packages contain lrmi.{c,h}, [..] > But actually we should stop duplicating code (esp. OLD code - som

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:17:44 + Matthew Garrett wrote: > >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and > >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times? > > You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know... The patch for what? For the *_MASK defines F

Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Evgeni Golov wrote: >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times? You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know... -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.de...@srcf.ucam.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Dear debian-devel, dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h}, today Lucas has reported #518725 - atitvout FTBFS because of missing *_MASK defines. Seeing that bug and remembering fun with lrmi myself, I thought I can have a look how many other packages will FTBFS. The following package

Release Note, Promise TX4 and Linux kernels >= 2.6.22

Hi there! Please Cc: me, I'm not subscribed to d-release. I cc:ed d-devel FYI, but I think this discussion belongs to d-release, please continue there. I just discovered a "bug" with the etch-and-a-half kernel [1]. Actually, it's not really a bug, but it clearly needs an entry in the release not

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

r my dom0 machines and build 2.6.25 kernels for my domUs. I can't see any major howlers with this as the domUs won't rely on anything linux/version specific in the dom0 kernel? No that should be perfectly fine and is pretty much what I do (I use the XenSource 2.6.18-xen tree though).

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

64 bit yet. > > > > Ian. > > > > Many thanks all, > > I've decided to do the following: > > Upgrade to Xen 3.2.0 using the 2.6.18 kernel (debian tree) for > my dom0 machines and build 2.6.25 kernels for my domUs. I can't > see any major howler

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

eful, it's PAE+XEN. Also that that kernel only has i386 support for Xen, no 64 bit yet. Ian. Many thanks all, I've decided to do the following: Upgrade to Xen 3.2.0 using the 2.6.18 kernel (debian tree) for my dom0 machines and build 2.6.25 kernels for my domUs. I can't see

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "Daniel Widenfalk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ok, so dropping back a step. Let's assume that I build the 3.2.0 XEN > > hypervisor and dom0 kernel using 2.6.18 as base. I should then be able to > > build domU kernel(s) u

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

"Daniel Widenfalk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, so dropping back a step. Let's assume that I build the 3.2.0 XEN > hypervisor and dom0 kernel using 2.6.18 as base. I should then be able to > build domU kernel(s) using the linux-source-2.6.25 files? How? > > I can't seem to get CONFIG_XEN set

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:37:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've been trying (with absolutely no success) to build XEN kernels using >> the 2.6.25 kernel source tree. I've got 10 domU's and 2 dom0 that I want >> to upgrad

am-utils and recent kernels

Hi people, I'm here to ask for your thoughts about what I should do with the am- utils automounter in Lenny. Recent kernels are more picky about some aspects of NFS, which has exposed a bug in am-utils. See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=479884

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:37:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been trying (with absolutely no success) to build XEN kernels using > the 2.6.25 kernel source tree. I've got 10 domU's and 2 dom0 that I want > to upgrade. > > I'

Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:37:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can someone please help me? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 . > Do I need to install some other "kernel-patch"? No, you need to wait, wait, wait... Or

How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?

Hi all, I've been trying (with absolutely no success) to build XEN kernels using the 2.6.25 kernel source tree. I've got 10 domU's and 2 dom0 that I want to upgrade. I've done $ apt-get install linux-tree-2.5.26 $ tar xjz linux-source-2.5.6.bz2 and then numerous variat

Re: FW: Re: distro specific kernels vs vanilla kernel and how to

thanks - i have found linux-2.6_2.6.18.dfsg.1-13etch4.diff.gz via your link - seems this is what i was looking for. regards roland List: debian-devel Subject:Re: FW: Re: distro specific kernels vs vanilla kernel and how to From: "Francesco P. Lovergine" Date:

Re: FW: Re: distro specific kernels vs vanilla kernel and how to compare among each other

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:08:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i don`t know how debian build system works - but is this handled differently > there? > > i searched for some time and all i found was some large diff which i can turn > into a broken-out version, but a patch-collection with

FW: Re: distro specific kernels vs vanilla kernel and how to compare among each other

patch files/archives/repositories or tell me if it`s different in debian ? thank you! regards roland > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: 17.11.07 13:32:28 > An: "Andi Kleen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betre

Re: libc6 with support for old kernels

has only 1.1.4. > backports.org has subversion 1.4.1 for sarge, but no libsvn0-dev. ] > > Is there an compiled libc6 that has support for older kernels, too, or > some easy way to recompile it? Support for 2.4 kernels has been removed from upstream glibc. -- .''`. A

Re: libc6 with support for old kernels

installing the whole system. We dropped support for 2.4 kernels for lenny altogether (except for some minor architectures, but I wont enter the gory details). So if you need to run antiquated software, use antiquated distros. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O

Re: libc6 with support for old kernels

Hello Michael, > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote: >> I'd like to ask for some help. > > Please ask on debian-user, debian-devel is a development list. will do. I thought that as my target solution would involve a differently compiled libc5 packet that the -devel list was

Re: libc6 with support for old kernels

Hi, On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote: > I'd like to ask for some help. Please ask on debian-user, debian-devel is a development list. regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

libc6 with support for old kernels

). [ I tried to use the sarge-packages; while the packages work on 2.4.25, they are really old versions, and unuseable. Eg. fsvs needs at least subversion 1.2, while sarge has only 1.1.4. backports.org has subversion 1.4.1 for sarge, but no libsvn0-dev. ] Is there an compiled libc6 that has suppo

Re: debian kernels and APM poweroff

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:01:04AM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote: > A possible solution is to put > > options apm poweroff > argh. stupid typo. should be: options apm power_off -- c u henning signature.asc Description: Digital signature

debian kernels and APM poweroff

Moin, there is one issue with the newer debian kernels, as they have SMP enabled: as documented in bugs #376089 and #378323, apm poweroff does not work anymore. A possible solution is to put options apm poweroff somewhere under /etc/modprobe.d/ and regenerate the initrd. IMHO it would

Which kernels are vulnerable?

Hi all, Had an argument over the weekend about which kernels are vulnerable to the exploit that was used to take gluck down. I maintained that only kernels >= 2.6.13 and <= 2.6.17.4 are vulnerable, but in the end I proved myself wrong when I took the exploit code, changed the line tha

sarge, unstable, lvm2 and kernels

cannot be installed with kernels < 2.6.12 3a) system works OR 1b) dist-upgrade all packages 2b) lvm2 complains as above 3b) try to install newest unstable kernel, 2.6.15 4b) 2.6.15 installs fine 5b) system will not boot (it dies mounting /sys, so I assume it's on initrd) OR 1c) dist-upgra

Re: No 2.6 kernels for 586 in Sarge and up

Le lundi 02 janvier 2006 à 16:40 +0100, Jérôme Warnier a écrit : > I wonder why there is no 2.6 kernel package for 586 in Sarge while there > is for 2.4? > I can find 386-486-686 and k7, but no 586. AFAIK, this was done to reduce the (way too high) number of kernels. The performance im

Re: No 2.6 kernels for 586 in Sarge and up

Hi On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 02:55, Frans Pop wrote: > On Monday 02 January 2006 16:40, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > I wonder why there is no 2.6 kernel package for 586 in Sarge while > > there is for 2.4? > > I can find 386-486-686 and k7, but no 586. > > Try linux-{source,image,headers}. (on sarge, long

Re: No 2.6 kernels for 586 in Sarge and up

On Monday 02 January 2006 16:40, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > I wonder why there is no 2.6 kernel package for 586 in Sarge while > there is for 2.4? > I can find 386-486-686 and k7, but no 586. Try linux-{source,image,headers}. pgpWpHgVmaU8B.pgp Description: PGP signature

No 2.6 kernels for 586 in Sarge and up

I wonder why there is no 2.6 kernel package for 586 in Sarge while there is for 2.4? I can find 386-486-686 and k7, but no 586. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian kernels

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 20:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > 1) What's the timeframe? Should it be available for Sarge, so it needs > > >quick packaging? [...] > Uh, I don't care how quickly you package it, we're not promoting a totally > new package from unstable to stable in the space of a

Re: Debian kernels

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 07:21:41AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Monday 30 May 2005 06:01, Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (*) I don't have time to take on another package at the moment. But I > > > would be happy to help someone who wants to package auditd. > > I have a l

Re: Debian kernels

On Monday 30 May 2005 06:01, Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (*) I don't have time to take on another package at the moment. But I > > would be happy to help someone who wants to package auditd. > > I have a little time and would like to package auditd. There are two > problems

Re: Debian kernels

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 16:09 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > The option CONFIG_AUDIT needs to be enabled to allow SE Linux access denials > to be logged, without this it is impossible to use SE Linux. While making > such changes enabling the option CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL would be useful, this > enabl

Debian kernels

The current Debian kernels have SE Linux compiled in, but not in a form that is usable. The option CONFIG_AUDIT needs to be enabled to allow SE Linux access denials to be logged, without this it is impossible to use SE Linux. While making such changes enabling the option CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:43:52PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:13:55AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > Given some options: > > > > > > 1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all; > > > 2. Provid

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's also funny that people want debian to release so bad, and yet fight > the release team at every announcement. I don't see a problem with > wanting to know as much about transitions and migrations in advance as > possible. I'm sure there will be a

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:50:53 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:17:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> > Why do you need to know about all transitions this month if Debian 3.2 >> > is scheduled for the end of 20

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:17:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Why do you need to know about all transitions this month if Debian 3.2 > > is scheduled for the end of 2006 or 2007? > > ... so that the release team can plan ahead

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Why do you need to know about all transitions this month if Debian 3.2 > is scheduled for the end of 2006 or 2007? ... so that the release team can plan ahead a bit? Gee. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FI

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050401 23:35]: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > >... > > > Major changes in etch > > > - > > > > > > If you intend to make major changes (li

Re: Release update: debian-installer, kernels, infrastructure, freeze, etch, arm

* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050401 23:35]: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > >... > > Major changes in etch > > - > > > > If you intend to make major changes (like a C++ ABI bump) during the > > development of etch, please speak with the

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050402 18:10]: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > On Apr 02, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> >> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive. > > >> >> > This does present certain logistical problems for produc

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:13:55AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Given some options: > > > > 1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all; > > 2. Provide a way to download the blob during install (while admitting > >this won

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:36:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 03, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > | Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of > > > | Debian, and therefore do suppo

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Given some options: > > 1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all; > 2. Provide a way to download the blob during install (while admitting >this won't work if the blob is the code for your ADSL modem); > 3. Provide the blob o

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:10:34PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:51 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Putting items from the non-free archive in the installer images does > > just that. It is debatable whether the intention is the same, but by our > > rulebook, this is not

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:51 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Putting items from the non-free archive in the installer images does > just that. It is debatable whether the intention is the same, but by our > rulebook, this is not allowed. Wait...so you're saying it's OK to put non-free stuff in the

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > One example: with our current package management tools once you've got >> > an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will s

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > > > On Apr 02, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> So what? > > > > > So it is a problem, because curren

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:15:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers. > A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's > true. Do you mean to say a free in

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Apr 03, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > | Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of > > | Debian, and therefore do support various recent makes of hardware > > | (link to list) that require

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > One example: with our current package management tools once you've got > > an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will start > > to show up in things like searches.

  1   2   3   4   5   >