Re: Bug#699367: an issue with crash(8) perhaps?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39:04AM -0700, Troy Heber wrote:
> On 02/21/13 09:22, David Magda wrote:
>
> > >>If it is the "crash", can we either get:
> > >>(a) the patch added to squeeze package, and/or
> > >>(b) wheezy crash backported.
> >
> > Any news on whether (a) or (b) will be done? Or is there a (c) that
> > hasn't been considered perhaps?
>
> I haven't tried to push for a squeeze backport of crash debugger yet
> and honestly I really don't want to push for it unless there is a good
> reason.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, I can't see
> how this could have an effect on more than one or two users. How many
> people are really running a 3.x kernel on top of a Squeeze userspace
> AND who also are worried about running the debugger on that specific
> live system AND who can't easily workaround it?
[...]
> Since ware are only talking about users who have explicitly moved to a
> kernel that is not part of the original distribution and who also want
> to run the crash debugger against it I would say this is a technically
> aware user who shouldn't be too put off having to do:
[...]
The squeeze kernel is unfortunately missing support for a lot of
current hardware (notably graphics but also some networking chips) so
many people are running later kernel versions. I would love to fix
some of these but I have my hands full and I can rarely test
backported drivers myself. So I would expect quite a lot of people
to be running Linux 3.2 from wheezy or squeeze-backports, or a custom
3.x kernel (which doesn't require a huge amount of technical
sophistication).
I don't know how many people use 'crash'; you're in a better position
to answer that.
I think that rather more than one or two users will be affected by
this, and if there is a simple fix then it is fair to expect that
you will save them the trouble.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Reply to: