Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r1
- To: Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r1
- From: Gerhard Tonn <GerhardTonn@onlinehome.de>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:11:00 +0100
- Message-id: <02110819110000.01127@tau>
- In-reply-to: <20021102222850.GB727@finlandia.infodrom.north.de>
- References: <20021102222850.GB727@finlandia.infodrom.north.de>
On Saturday 02 November 2002 23:28, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r1
> An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r1/>.
I have just noticed the following
>kernel-patch-2.4.17-s390 stable 0.0.20020415-1 all, source
>kernel-patch-2.4.17-s390 updates 0.0.20020816-0.woody.1 all, source
> * Integrated a new kernel-patch from the IBM Developerworks website (released on 2002.06.12). This patch fixes the DASD deadlock problem and some
> other severe problems. * Removed NMU DASD deadlock fix. * Integrated a new kernel-patch from the IBM Developerworks website (released on
> 2002.08.16). This patch fixes a problem related to the IUCV driver.
> This sounds like a more or less regular update to me, which should not target the stable release.
This is not true. The woody kernel is definitely broken on s390, deadlock in I/O code. Fortunately we have a working kernel as part of the boot-floppies,
so that most of our users didn't notice it, but we had already several problems with the kernel when users build their own. So please accept the update.
We need not only the kernel-patch, but also an update of the kernel-image. It wasn't accepted by katie, probably because katie accepts
only one .udeb per package and architecture. Should I upload a version of the kernel-image without an .udeb?