Debian Bug report logs - #240812
kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:38:00 +0200

Package: kernel
Severity: normal

Hi,

I always needed to use the separate driver from the bcm5700-source
package for my NIC. tg3 from the current 2.6.4 kernel only works to a
certain extent. I can browse the web (-> HTTP, DNS), ping etc. But NFS
doesn't work. When I mount something, I get the following syslog lines:

=============================================================================
Mar 29 13:23:13 atari kernel: nfs warning: mount version older than kernel
Mar 29 13:24:30 atari kernel: nfs: server sbo not responding, still trying
=============================================================================

Please note that I get the first line also with bcm5700. The second
line doesn't appear before the volume is already mounted and I cd'd to a
directory inside it. An "ls" makes the second line appear after some
seconds, and the terminal with the "ls" hangs without printing anything
further.

The attachments in this mail show the kern.log for the bcm5700 and tg3
case.

"lspci -vv" says the following:
=============================================================================
[...]
0000:02:05.0 Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5702 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 02)
        Subsystem: Asustek Computer, Inc.: Unknown device 80a9
        Control: I/O- Mem- BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B-
        Status: Cap+ 66MHz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-
        Latency: 64 (16000ns min), Cache Line Size: 0x10 (64 bytes)
        Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 18
        Region 0: Memory at ed800000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=f1e70000]
        Expansion ROM at 00010000 [disabled]
        Capabilities: [40] PCI-X non-bridge device.
                Command: DPERE- ERO- RBC=0 OST=0
                Status: Bus=255 Dev=31 Func=1 64bit+ 133MHz+ SCD- USC-, DC=simple, DMMRBC=2, DMOST=0, DMCRS=1, RSCEM-
        Capabilities: [48] Power Management version 2
                Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot+,D3cold+)
                Status: D0 PME-Enable+ DSel=0 DScale=1 PME-
        Capabilities: [50] Vital Product Data
        Capabilities: [58] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/3 Enable-
                Address: dfffffbfedfffcfc  Data: fdff
[...]
=============================================================================

Please tell me how I can help debugging this.

Thanks.

bye,
  Roland

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.4
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_GB.UTF-8)

Message #10 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:00:48 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

due to a bug in reportbug ;-) I have to send these two attachments in a
separate mail.

bye,
  Roland

[kern.log.bcm5700 (text/plain, attachment)]

[kern.log.tg3 (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240441: bcm5700 doesn't suspend and resume as expected

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:47:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[#240812 seems to be the right place now to discuss this.]

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 15:09, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> [2004.03.29.1409 +0200]:
> > That sounds reasonable, considering that DNS works. :)
> 
> DNS falls back to TCP when UDP does not work.

Well, OK.

> Could you try e.g. ntpdate

That seems to work with tg3:

Mar 29 15:33:08 atari ntpdate[3505]: step time server 213.144.140.154
offset 0.000007 sec

> or using netcat to communicate over a UDP socket (-u)?

This works fine, both for TCP and UDP, and both as client and server
(although for netcat there's no big difference).

bye,
  Roland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>

To: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240441: bcm5700 doesn't suspend and resume as expected

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:52:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

also sprach Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> [2004.03.29.1647 +0200]:
> [#240812 seems to be the right place now to discuss this.]

great!

Have you established contact with the LKML
(linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org)?

-- 
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:36:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 16:52, martin f krafft wrote:
> Have you established contact with the LKML
> (linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org)?

Since I'm exclusively using Debian patched kernels, I'm usually abusing
Herbert as a filter preventing Debian people asking stupid questions at
LKML. :)

At least, I'll wait for Herbert's suggestions.

bye,
  Roland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #30 received at 240812-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 02:38:00PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Package: kernel
> Severity: normal
> 
> I always needed to use the separate driver from the bcm5700-source
> package for my NIC. tg3 from the current 2.6.4 kernel only works to a
> certain extent. I can browse the web (-> HTTP, DNS), ping etc. But NFS
> doesn't work. When I mount something, I get the following syslog lines:

I'm sorry but I can't support tg3 because it contains binary
firmware and thus may be removed at any time.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Message #35 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:51:23 +0200

reopen 240812
tag 240812 upstream
forwarded 240812 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
thanks

Hi Herbert,

please don't just "close bugs away". Close it when you actually remove
tg3, or let me track it until I find it working some day. I forwarded it
to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org and the original tg3 developers.

Thanks.

bye,
  Roland

Message #46 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

To: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:07:37 +1000

notforwarded 240812
severity 240812 grave
reassign 240812 kernel
reassign 239952 kernel
merge 239952 240812
quit

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:51:23PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> reopen 240812
> tag 240812 upstream
> forwarded 240812 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> thanks
> 
> please don't just "close bugs away". Close it when you actually remove
> tg3, or let me track it until I find it working some day. I forwarded it
> to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org and the original tg3 developers.

So you're reqeusting for its removal? OK, I'll do so in the next release.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Message #59 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:06:47 +0100

* Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> [2004-03-31 07:07]:
> > please don't just "close bugs away". Close it when you actually remove
> > tg3, or let me track it until I find it working some day. I forwarded it
> > to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org and the original tg3 developers.
> 
> So you're reqeusting for its removal? OK, I'll do so in the next release.

Herbert, please.  I think most people said that the firmware
discussion is an issue for sarge+1, so please don't close bug reports
about issues in these drivers.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #64 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: kernel-{image,source}-2.6.4: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:10:11 +1000

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:06:47PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> 
> Herbert, please.  I think most people said that the firmware
> discussion is an issue for sarge+1, so please don't close bug reports
> about issues in these drivers.

That has not been my impression.

My current plan is to remove the drivers that had been requested
in the next release (2.6.5, 2.4.26): qla* and tg3.

In any case, until I'm absolutely sure that we can distribute the
firmware as is, I will not be able to support them.

There are simply better things for me to do than to spend time on drivers
that might be removed at some point in the future, whether that be sarge
or sarge+1.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Message #89 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

To: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:34:22 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi!

What's the status with these bugs? There are 5 reported violations of the
DFSG, from 65 to 53 days old.

William, you're the current maintainer of the Debian packaged version of
Linux (well, technicaly not yet, but I'm told you're dessignated for that
task). These bugs should be your main priority for what Linux packaging is
concerned. Which progress have you made? When do you expect to have this
fixed?

Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is a
trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't.
Therefore if the latter requires long-term work, the former has to take
priority. So the question is, does it require long-term work?

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #94 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:09:49 +0200

* Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 10:55]:
> Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
> disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is a
> trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't.
> Therefore if the latter requires long-term work, the former has to take
> priority. So the question is, does it require long-term work?

Please remember that there is a decision of the release manager on
this issue which changes must be pre-sarge, and how to do them:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/04/msg00060.html


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Message #99 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

To: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:11:01 +1000

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:22AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> What's the status with these bugs? There are 5 reported violations of the
> DFSG, from 65 to 53 days old.
> 
> William, you're the current maintainer of the Debian packaged version of
> Linux (well, technicaly not yet, but I'm told you're dessignated for that
> task). These bugs should be your main priority for what Linux packaging is
> concerned. Which progress have you made? When do you expect to have this
> fixed?

I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
maintaining these packages.

Anthony, can you please clarify this? That is, does the upcoming GR vote
have a potential effect on whether these kernel DFSG issues are release
critical?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Message #104 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:05:31 +0200

Hi Andreas,

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 10:55]:
> > Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
> > disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is a
> > trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't.
> > Therefore if the latter requires long-term work, the former has to take
> > priority. So the question is, does it require long-term work?
> 
> Please remember that there is a decision of the release manager on
> this issue which changes must be pre-sarge, and how to do them:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/04/msg00060.html

Unless I'm missing something, the release manager doesn't have the authority
to override the Social Contract (1.1) that was ratified by GR in April.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Message #109 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:32:59 +0200

* Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 13:25]:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 10:55]:
> > > Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas
> > > disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is a
> > > trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't.
> > > Therefore if the latter requires long-term work, the former has to take
> > > priority. So the question is, does it require long-term work?

> > Please remember that there is a decision of the release manager on
> > this issue which changes must be pre-sarge, and how to do them:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/04/msg00060.html
 
> Unless I'm missing something, the release manager doesn't have the authority
> to override the Social Contract (1.1) that was ratified by GR in April.

You might have missed GR 2004-003, and the discussions therein. There
are proposals to override the SC for the release of sarge. Also, it is
not even decided if the previous sarge release policy is a violation
of the social contract (or if the SC does not even ask for it because
we want to release rather soon now), but, frankly speaking, I prefer
such discussions to take place on debian-vote, and keep debian-kernel
and the bts free from these discussions.

For us, this decision of the RM is still valid, till he (or another
delegate of the DPL, or a GR) tells us otherwise.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Message #114 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:17:32 +0200

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> 
> I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
> status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
> maintaining these packages.

As a volunteer you can always take the decision of not acting. Anyway, I'm
demanding explanation to the current Linux maintainer. You're clearly excused
for not fixing this before.

However, the situation is that the bugs are currently on RC status. We fix
DFSG-compliance bugs basing on the current SC, and regardless of what
future versions of the SC might or might not require.

> Anthony, can you please clarify this? That is, does the upcoming GR vote
> have a potential effect on whether these kernel DFSG issues are release
> critical?

I believe it does. Again, future GRs and future versions of the SC all have
a potential effect on DFSG-compliance issues, but that doesn't excuse us from
addressing them.

But I'm not in a rush. Let's wait for William's response on his progress..

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Message #119 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:02:53 +0200

* Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 13:55]:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
> > status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
> > maintaining these packages.

> However, the situation is that the bugs are currently on RC status. We fix
> DFSG-compliance bugs basing on the current SC, and regardless of what
> future versions of the SC might or might not require.

You mean as in: We break release of sarge, whether or not the
developers want to release now? Please wait for the decision of the
developers in the GR. There is no need to rush now.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Message #124 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:46:32 +0200

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:32:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>  
> > Unless I'm missing something, the release manager doesn't have the authority
> > to override the Social Contract (1.1) that was ratified by GR in April.
> 
> You might have missed GR 2004-003, and the discussions therein.

GR 2004-003 (which I supported) implies that the discussion on wether
firmware is software is no longer relevant, so please keep that aside.

> There
> are proposals to override the SC for the release of sarge.

Please answer this: Since you agree with proposals for future versions of the
Social Contract and disagree with the current one, do you find it justified
to violate the Social Contract untill a version of your liking is committed?

> Also, it is
> not even decided if the previous sarge release policy is a violation
> of the social contract (or if the SC does not even ask for it because
> we want to release rather soon now),

It's not about Sarge release policy, it's about violation of DFSG (and, in
some cases, copyright law [1]) in our unstable archive.

[1] IANAL.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Message #129 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:32:19 +0200

* Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 14:25]:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:32:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > There
> > are proposals to override the SC for the release of sarge.

> Please answer this: Since you agree with proposals for future versions of the
> Social Contract and disagree with the current one, do you find it justified
> to violate the Social Contract untill a version of your liking is committed?

As I said: I want to avoid this discussion on d-kernel, because it's
better on d-vote.

But as you ask: In my opinion, delivering the kernel with binary blobs
is a smaller violation of the social contract than to remove important
functionality or further delay the release of sarge. So, I think this
smaller violation is justified by avoid the larger one. (Or in other
words: In my opinion, it's ok from the point of view of the social
contract to keep the status quo of the kernel.)

Please be aware that there is another issue with GPL-incompatibility
that needs to be solved in either case, see the referenced decision by
Anthony. And, of course, there are other interpretations of the social
contract.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Message #134 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Francesco P. Lovergine" <frankie@debian.org>

To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, wli@debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:17:23 +0200

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 13:55]:
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
> > > status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
> > > maintaining these packages.
> 
> > However, the situation is that the bugs are currently on RC status. We fix
> > DFSG-compliance bugs basing on the current SC, and regardless of what
> > future versions of the SC might or might not require.
> 
> You mean as in: We break release of sarge, whether or not the
> developers want to release now? Please wait for the decision of the
> developers in the GR. There is no need to rush now.
> 

IMHO experimental packages with needed changes should be prepaired
regardless the outcome of the new GR, and kept somewhere ready,
if the resulting vote was different from expectations, i.e. sarge
will be clean on the basis of the current SC. That's the only
way to avoid unacceptable long delays. If you want the peace, prepair
the war :)

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine

Message #139 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, wli@debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:43:31 +0200

* Francesco P. Lovergine (frankie@debian.org) [040603 16:25]:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Robert Millan (zeratul2@wanadoo.es) [040603 13:55]:
> > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > > I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
> > > > status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
> > > > maintaining these packages.

> > > However, the situation is that the bugs are currently on RC status. We fix
> > > DFSG-compliance bugs basing on the current SC, and regardless of what
> > > future versions of the SC might or might not require.

> > You mean as in: We break release of sarge, whether or not the
> > developers want to release now? Please wait for the decision of the
> > developers in the GR. There is no need to rush now.

> IMHO experimental packages with needed changes should be prepaired
> regardless the outcome of the new GR, and kept somewhere ready,
> if the resulting vote was different from expectations, i.e. sarge
> will be clean on the basis of the current SC. That's the only
> way to avoid unacceptable long delays. If you want the peace, prepair
> the war :)

Well, it think it's consensus to do the move to non-free sooner or
later, so it's always good to put work into that move. If somebody
volunteers, that's fine. But, I don't think it's appropriate to put
that much emphasise on doing that _now_, where we have other problems
(like reducing the number of kernel sources enough that we can have
security support for sarge).



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Message #144 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Cc: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org, wli@debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:50:58 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:22AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > What's the status with these bugs? There are 5 reported violations of the
> > DFSG, from 65 to 53 days old.
> I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC
> status.  That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still
> maintaining these packages.
> 
> Anthony, can you please clarify this? That is, does the upcoming GR vote
> have a potential effect on whether these kernel DFSG issues are release
> critical?

Currently, the requirement is that kernel packages in main not include
sourceless firmware.

That policy may be changed to allow the sourceless firmware to be included
if it's loaded from userspace rather than included in the driver directly,
depending on the outcome of the GR.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #149 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Francesco P. Lovergine" <frankie@debian.org>

To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, wli@debian.org, Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:14:43 +0200

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:43:31PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 
> > IMHO experimental packages with needed changes should be prepaired
> > regardless the outcome of the new GR, and kept somewhere ready,
> > if the resulting vote was different from expectations, i.e. sarge
> > will be clean on the basis of the current SC. That's the only
> > way to avoid unacceptable long delays. If you want the peace, prepair
> > the war :)
> 
> Well, it think it's consensus to do the move to non-free sooner or
> later, so it's always good to put work into that move. If somebody
> volunteers, that's fine. But, I don't think it's appropriate to put
> that much emphasise on doing that _now_, where we have other problems
> (like reducing the number of kernel sources enough that we can have
> security support for sarge).
> 

That silently implies that you hopes a favourable outcome in next GR.
If it wouldn't so, we will have anyway heavy new RCs to dial with.
At least we have to collect all stuff which needs cut and be ready.
Surely removing unuseful sources is due, but that can be mainly
done with less efforts (maybe)

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine

Message #154 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>

To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>, 240812@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:17:33 +0200

Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
[snip]
> That silently implies that you hopes a favourable outcome in next GR.
> If it wouldn't so, we will have anyway heavy new RCs to dial with.
> At least we have to collect all stuff which needs cut and be ready.
> Surely removing unuseful sources is due, but that can be mainly
> done with less efforts (maybe)

Feel free to create such patches, then (instead of demanding this
work to be done by others).


Thiemo

Message #159 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>

To: wli@debian.org

Cc: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: RC bugs in Linux

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:12:12 +0200

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:17:33PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> [snip]
> > That silently implies that you hopes a favourable outcome in next GR.
> > If it wouldn't so, we will have anyway heavy new RCs to dial with.
> > At least we have to collect all stuff which needs cut and be ready.
> > Surely removing unuseful sources is due, but that can be mainly
> > done with less efforts (maybe)
> 
> Feel free to create such patches, then (instead of demanding this
> work to be done by others).

I have no problem and creating the patches that fix these RC bugs. I also
have no problem in uploading an NMU with my patches.

However, this work is task of William, the Linux maintainer. I will only take
action is he doesn't, and I'm still waiting for a response from him. It'd be
unpolite to assume he's not going to respond.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Message #164 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

To: control@bugs.debian.org, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:47:41 +0200

tags 240812 -sarge -sid +upstream
severity 240812 normal
thanks

Please continue all flames^H^H^H^H^H^Hdicussion of non-free firmware in
#242866, so we can look into fixing the original problem reported in
this bug, thanks.

Message #169 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

To: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:49:53 +0200

Does this still happen with 2.6.7?  There have been a few tg3 fixes in
that area lately.

Message #184 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: (no subject)

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:30:04 +0100

* Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> [2004-06-27 17:49]:
> To: 240812@bugs.debian.org
> Does this still happen with 2.6.7?  There have been a few tg3 fixes in
> that area lately.

Mail sent to nnnn@bugs.debian.org is NOT sent to the submitter.
You've to mail nnnn-submitter@bugs.d.o (and nnnn@bugs.d.o) to reach
them.  I'll bounce your mail to him.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #189 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: (no subject)

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:30:44 +0100

* Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> [2004-06-27 17:49]:
> Does this still happen with 2.6.7?  There have been a few tg3 fixes
> in that area lately.

Roland, Christoph's mail wasn't sent to you.  Do you know if this
still happens with 2.6.7?
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #194 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#240812: tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:19:26 +0200

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 15:30, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> [2004-06-27 17:49]:
> > Does this still happen with 2.6.7?  There have been a few tg3 fixes
> > in that area lately.
> 
> Roland, Christoph's mail wasn't sent to you.

Thanks for notifying me.

> Do you know if this still happens with 2.6.7?

Yes, it does.

Message #199 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>

Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, netdev@oss.sgi.com, 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian #240812 - tg3 problems with NFS

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:07:06 +0200

On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 19:29, David S. Miller wrote:
> Maybe it's checksum offload related.  Try:
> 
> ethtool -K $(DEVICE_NAME) rx off tx off sg off tso off
> 
> Does that make the problem go away?

No.

Message #204 received at 240812@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: maximilian attems <maks@debian.org>

To: control@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 240812@bugs.debian.org

Subject: closing 240812

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:52:18 +0200

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.7
# presumably fixed
close 240812 

Message #209 received at 240812-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: maximilian attems <max@stro.at>

To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

Subject: mass closing old kernel bugs

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:28:39 +0200

thank you for submitting a bug report concerning the debian kernel.
In a cleanup run on old kernel bugs your report has been closed,
as either it is fixed or presumed to be fixed on a newer version.
old sata or intel board bugs can be assumed to work. 

if you can still reproduce the trouble just scream and the bug will
be reopened. it is very usefull if you still have the trouble to try
out the latest trunk version that just installs fine in etch/lenny/sid:
see trunk apt lines for 2.6.23-rc5 and bug reporting
-> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel
-> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelReportingBugs

best regards

-- 
maks





-- 
maks

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.