Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3 won't boot on alpha (fwd)
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:52:04PM -0400, Tom Evans wrote:
> Please help me understand - no patched version will go to
> experimental/unstable?
It's been uploaded to unstable now. Thanks again to Bob for the testing!
> I will try to test tonight or tomorrow - is there a .deb already, or
> should I build it?
> I went to the link looking for a .deb - which is why I backed off -
> figured someone would ask the questions that I was afraid to ask.
Sorry, I tend not to distribute binary .debs directly because I don't want
people to blindly trust unsigned .debs (from me or from anyone), and I don't
want to be distributing signed changes files (the standard method for
signing .debs) that could be uploaded straight to the Debian archive without
my consent. (The latter actually wasn't an issue here, but meh, habits.)
> Also, it was unclear to me what the difference between Richard's patch
> and the once provided.
> I realize it addresses issues other than the PT_NOTE issue - is that the
> sole reason that it is not used?
I didn't use Richard's patch directly because it duplicated build fixes that
had already been applied, and it included changes which I believe were both
wrong and irrelevant to the PT_LOAD issue.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:22:14PM -0500, Bob Tracy wrote:
> Steve's in a better position to explain himself, but my interpretation
> of recent postings is that nothing's going to experimental/unstable
> until *someone* screws up his courage and actually tries using a
> "bootlx" built from his patched source package.
Well, it would've gone to unstable eventually, but if nobody else was able
to test it, that probably wouldn't happen until I had a 2.6.23 kernel to
test it with myself...
--
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/
Reply to: