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

Re: debian-installer and kernel status (pre- and post-sarge) on sparc


On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:34:34PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> I have been looking into the Blade1500 clock chip problem on request
> from Dave Miller. It seems that while we have a solution in the pipeline
> for 2.4.27, that is getting kernel-image-sparc 2.4.27-9 into testing and
> d-i once gluck comes back,

No, this is certainly not in the cards; kernel-image-sparc 2.4.27-9
build-depends on kernel-tree-2.4.27-9, which is not in testing and can't be
updated without also updating kernel-image packages for all those
architectures that use kernel-source without build-depending on
kernel-tree-2.4.27-x.  Getting this fix in for 2.4 on sparc would mean
destabilizing d-i on a number of unrelated archs (m68k, arm, mips).

> the same cannot be said for 2.6.8.

Actually, 2.6.8 is in much better shape for being updated, because after the
last accidental acceptance of kernel-source-2.6.8 into testing, powerpc and
m68k have been fixed up so that it's now possible to update
kernel-source-2.6.8 in testing without disturbing the kernel-image packages,
and to update kernel-image packages on one arch without disturbing the
other.  So I'm in favor of getting a kernel-image-2.6.8-sparc update into
sarge to fix 288180; it's up to Joey to decide whether this is really going
to happen, though, and to set limits on what other changes are allowed in
with it.  (For instance, I personally think that doing an ABI update at the
same time and getting the security fixes in is ok, but that rearranging the
set of modules being built is not ok.)

> The current d-i kernel image is linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 0.05.
> I am not sure which version of kernel-source this is based on,
> as a quick glance of the .dsc seems to indicate that the
> source dependancy is not versioned. However it too seems
> to be missing "m5823" and thus seems to not have the patch.

Yes, and unfortunately Josh's changelog entry is exceedingly vague; but from
the date, it would have to have been built against k-i-2.6.8-sparc 2.6.8-6

> From the previous messaage I understand that there is some likely
> hood of 2.6.8 being updated for sparc because of #288180.
> It seems like that would be a good chance to get this patch in.

Yah, agreed.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: