Re: 2.6.19, kernel-package problems and what are our plans for etch ...
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:43:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:30 +0100, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> said:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> - What is stopping 2.6.18 to enter testing ? The PTS says "Should
> >> ignore,
> >> but forced by vorlon", so does this mean it will enter testing
> >> today ? What about the remaining (or new) RC bugs ? Some of them
> >> being open against 2.6.17, so also present in testing.
>
> > We need another upload of linux-2.6 and linux-modules-extra-2.6 to
> > fix the following issues: linux-2.6:
> > - Some small security fixes.
> > - Fix for internal posix types support for s390.
> > - Conflict with too old initramfs generators, the fallback entry
> > matches them also.
> > - Don't longer disable serial drivers in xen images.
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6:
> > - Disable squashfs on arm, does not work.
>
> >> - latest info from Bastian was that the 2.6.19-rc6 experimental
> >> packages in
> >> experimental failed to build because of some kernel-package problem
> >> which caused silent bugs. Bastian, do you have any additional info
> >> to provide which may give a light to the problem ? Manoj, can you
> >> have a look at this, and maybe help us fix the issue ?
>
> > I'm not longer interrested in communicating errors in software,
> > which is not able to catch errors but reports silent success
> > instead. This is the fourth bug with this result in the last 6
> > months or so.
>
> And none of which you report. If you can't put together a
Notice that this is the same problem as the guy with 2.6.11 reported.
> coherent bug report, you can't expect issues to get resolved.
> Frankly, k-p works fine when used as expected -- linux-2.6 tries to
> mould it in a fashion which is not exactly supported, by overriding
> bits and pieces, and I am not surprised when things do not work as
> you try to force them to.
The real problem is that you don't really integrate well with the kernel team,
and have your own agenda. This is also true from the other side though.
What we really need is a strategy where you work better with the kernel team,
where we have more communication (also applies to Bastian), and where the
stated goal of kernel-package is to build both older kernel and the kernel
packages.
This would be a good starting point to take Jonas idea again, and move the
postinst scripts out of kernel-package and the linux-images, and into
separate package ?
> Even then, I would respond to bug reports which show
> misbehavior by kernel-package -- which have not exactly been
> forthcoming, have they?
>
> manoj
> tired of people trying to bend k-p into doing things it is not
> supposed to do, and then complaining when they fail
Well, to be honest, it goes both way.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: