On Tue, 08 May 2007 16:43:13 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters
> of VMWare Workstation 6, which hasn't been released yet no less
> considered *stable*.
Once I tried WS6, the same fault showed up after going back to 5.5.
However, t
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters
> of VMWare Workstation 6, which hasn't been released yet no less
> considered *stable*.
>
> --Dan
ok, then it only affects *some* amd64 users, but
app-emulation/vmware-workstation-5.5.3.34685 seems
to
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 00:36 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hiya,
> Reading over the discussion on lkml, it appears that it only affects
> x86_64 systems...
> Mike 5:)
Mine is an x86_64 system...it also only seems to affect early adopters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
Reading over the discussion on lkml, it appears that it only affects
x86_64 systems...
Mike 5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGQQlpu7rWomwgFXoRAhzPAJ94Dcg/S0a6dtHodXRyPRgRT4CS0gCdHSW2
ksz
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 01:11 +0200, Florian D. wrote:
> Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2.6.21 was released today. Testing muchly appreciated as usual -- please
> > file bugs and clearly mark them as 2.6.21 regressions if that is the case.
> >
>
> hello,
> 2.6.21 will break the current *stabl
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.6.21 was released today. Testing muchly appreciated as usual -- please
> file bugs and clearly mark them as 2.6.21 regressions if that is the case.
>
hello,
2.6.21 will break the current *stable* VMware worstation. VMware 6 will work
again. please see the
followi
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Daniel Drake kirjoitti:
>> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated
>>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention
>>> that as a reason in your post.
>> At last check this was a recommendation, n
Daniel Drake kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated
>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention
>> that as a reason in your post.
>
> At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody
Petteri Räty wrote:
Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated
by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention
that as a reason in your post.
At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody
objected timeframe-wise before.
Daniel Drake kirjoitti:
>
> This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on
> May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this
> will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind.
>
Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month di
10 matches
Mail list logo
