Re: Bug#445359: [Pkg-mol-devel] Bug#445359: [RFH] Mac-on-Linux for Debian lenny
Thanks for your interest. Please notice that I checked in a fix for this
RC bug into the pkg-mol SVN yesterday. These things remain to be done
before an upload:
- there is one additional translation update in the BTS that I would
like to incorporate.
- Test build linux-modules-extra-2.6 with the mol modules enabled again.
And if this succeeds ask the maintainer to reenable the modules.
- The package in SVN currently also contains some unrelated changes that
where done months ago but weren't important enough to warrant an
upload. They are mostly cosmetic packaging changes and don't change
the behaviour of the program. So we have to ask the release team if
it's ok to upload with these changes or if they prefer an upload with
just the RC fix and the translation update.
- Ask the release team for a freeze exemption.
- Either linux-2.6 >= 2.6.26 needs to go into testing or the fix for
#460667 must be applied to the 2.6.25 Debian kernel. Is the kernel
version for lenny already decided?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:58:56PM -0300, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Sorry for following up late.
> * Gaudenz Steinlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2008-07-16 04:38:53 ART]:
> > * The current version of mol in testing and unstable works with the
> > patches from SuSE. So no update to mol or the driver packages is
> > needed to fix the RC bug on mol-source.
> I am not sure if I completely get that. Which patches exactly, what
> needs to get patched by them? The mol-source package only, or is there
> deeper stuff in the kernel that needs to get patched, too? Please notice
> that <http://bugs.debian.org/460667> was approved and is available
> already available through unstable.
Yes I've seen this fix. Thanks to the kernel team for reconsidering the
> > * The fix needed to be able to build mol kernel modules with the current
> > Debian kernel was rejected by the kernel team.
> See above, was that all that was missing here?
Yes, that was all.
> > * So the only short term option I see is to update mol-source based on
> > the SuSE patches and to advise user to build their own kernel with the
> > handl_mm_fault patch if they want to run mol.
> The handle_mm_fault patch seems to be what was fixed in #460667 so I am
> planing to give the rest of the patches a try against mol-source. If it
> compiles for me and works I plan to do an NMU to fix this later today. I
> have set such a short time schedule because I got notified about a round
> of updated kernel images and thus also modules packages that will happen
> within the next day and if we want to get this in we would need to have
> it in shape when the rebuild of the modules packages happen.
> See this as information about my plans, keep me updated with objections
> to it or your own findings along these lines, I'm going to check this
> bugreport regularly for the time being.
Please don't NMU right now. I would most appreciate if you could test
the linux-modules-extra-2.6 build and possibly talk to the release team
about the best way to proceed.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~