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

Re: Outdated linux-2.6 backport

On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 10:29 +0100, Marcus Osdoba wrote:
> Am 18.01.2012 05:05, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> > On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 03:42 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 00:40 +0100, Marcus Osdoba wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Now that I finished with building up
> >> [...]
> >>> linux-image-3.1.0-1-486_3.1.8-2~bpo60+1_i386.deb
> >>
> >> This is wrong; modules built for '3.1.0-1-486' in testing/unstable will
> >> not be loadable in a backported kernel due to the compiler version
> >> change.  (I don't believe that gcc 4.4 and 4.6 are at all incompatible,
> >> but the module loader does check this.)
> > [...]
> >
> > Hmm... I think it used to, but I don't see any sign that it does any
> > more.  But let's not test this.
> >
> Sorry, I didn't get this. I've downgraded the compiler for the 
> backported kernel to gcc 4.4.
> Thesis:
> In general you won't have plain testing-packages if you just use 
> stable+stable-backports. So when compiling the 3.1.8-modules with the 
> same stable gcc (4.4) there is no gcc version mismatch within 
> stable+stable-backports (there is no gcc 4.6...)

Right.  But if the ABI number was left at 1, then it would be possible
to have a mismatch.

> So every additonal kernel module (besides those packaged inside 
> linux-image) need to be backported with the same gcc version.

No, Debian now only packages source for out-of-tree modules.  They are
built on user systems by dkms or module-assistant.

> Forgive me, if I got that completly wrong.
> Anyway, are there any news in the backport upload process? I still use 
> my own packages, but on the server I feel more comfortable with an 
> "official" version where more users may file bugs against.

I'm waiting for my key to be added, as I've replaced my key since the
last time I made backports.


> Thanks for your hard work.
> Marcus

Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power.  France is bacon.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: