[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: testing wanted: debian-installer, now with 2.6.15

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:46:01PM -0500, Jay Estabrook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:51:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > As of two days ago, the debian-installer svn tree has been switched to use
> > Linux 2.6.15 exclusively on alpha, instead of the previous 2.4.27.  This
> > means that with the most recent daily builds, all installer images for alpha
> > are using 2.6 kernels *only*, and the current plan is that d-i beta2 will be
> > the same.  If you haven't tried 2.6 on your alpha yet, now would be a good
> > time so you can let us know if it doesn't work before we drop 2.4 for etch
> > completely.

> Tried the netinstall CD from 02/07/06 on LX164, and found the following:

> 1. installer used 2.6.15 kernel with LEGACY_START option
> 2. installed kernel 2.4.27 with LEGACY_START option

Right; Joey's fixes should take care of the latter soon enough, so that we
get 2.6.15 instead.  The LEGACY_START problem itself probably won't get
fixed in time for beta2, but I look forward to having it resolved for etch.

> 3. de4x5 driver chosen for the 21143-based DE500 NIC with the installed
>    kernel, instead of the tulip driver

> IIRC, de4x5 can't do full duplex. But then again, de4x5 will work on
> all (?) boxes, whereas tulip is known to fail on some (AS250/AS500).

What PCI ID?

On my own system, I have the problem that it doesn't auto-load *any* network
driver, and I need to load de4x5 by hand.  Still need to file a bug report
about that.

> 4. in xorg.conf, had to change the mouse to /dev/psaux.

What was it set to before you changed it?  I'm guessing something like
/dev/input/mice?  It's my understanding that in 2.6, PS/2 mice are supposed
to be accessible using the generic input driver; if so, I guess this problem
should go away automatically once we're installing 2.6.15?

> 5. for Radeon 7500, drm looked OK in the log, but dmesg showed some
>    error that wasn't very helpful...

Ok.  If it's a kernel error, I guess that again we should try to debug this
against the 2.6 kernel rather than against 2.4.

> Otherwise, it all worked MUCH better than any previous Debian install
> I've attempted, and was very usable after reboot.

Hmm, considering how very little alpha-specific work has gone into this
version, and the various hardware-related regressions that have plagued me
with 2.6 on alpha, that's a pleasant surprise... :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: