Debian Bug report logs - #241497
need upgrade directories for hppa64, sparc sun4m and 80386

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>

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

Subject: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:21:12 +0100

Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: critical
Tags: sid
Justification: breaks the whole system

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

libc6 gives "illegal instruction" on execution of almost any program.

Libc6 uses the non-386 BSWAP instruction, which is non-existing on a 386.
The CPU tested on is a Nexgen, which has a 386 instruction set.

As an example:

Core was generated by `ls --color=auto -l core'.
Program terminated with signal 4, Illegal instruction.
Reading symbols from /lib/librt.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/librt.so.1
Reading symbols from /lib/libacl.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libacl.so.1
Reading symbols from /lib/libc.so.6...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libc.so.6
Reading symbols from /lib/libpthread.so.0...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libpthread.so.0
Reading symbols from /lib/ld-linux.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/ld-linux.so.2
Reading symbols from /lib/libattr.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libattr.so.1
Reading symbols from /lib/libnss_compat.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_compat.so.2
Reading symbols from /lib/libnsl.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libnsl.so.1
Reading symbols from /lib/libnss_nis.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_nis.so.2
Reading symbols from /lib/libnss_files.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_files.so.2
#0  0x400ca38f in tzset () from /lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0  0x400ca38f in tzset () from /lib/libc.so.6
#1  0x400c91a9 in adjtime () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2  0x400ca0a6 in tzset () from /lib/libc.so.6
#3  0x400c8612 in localtime () from /lib/libc.so.6
#4  0x00000001 in ?? ()
#5  0x401690a0 in _obstack () from /lib/libc.so.6
#6  0x08055e34 in _IO_stdin_used ()
#7  0xbffff918 in ?? ()
#8  0x0804d47b in ?? ()
#9  0xbfffdc8c in ?? ()
#10 0x08055e34 in _IO_stdin_used ()
#11 0xbfffdf31 in ?? ()
(gdb) x/i 0x400ca38f
0x400ca38f <tzset+943>: bswap  %eax
(gdb)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAJK4IMtlM9PL9yocRAgn/AJ9bg6C+8chBYtUPOLlu4SKZ1zPfLwCggL1V
XDOOeoku9ElnDoId0I0WfGU=
=iH8c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #10 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: 231538@bugs.debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:01:05 +0100

This is not a bug, i386 support is dropped, gcc is configured to
generate code for i486 and up. IIRC the kernel binaries for i386 do
have a patch for emulation support for non-i386 instructions.

Message #15 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

To: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>

Cc: 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@debian.org, pb@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:43:30 +0100

Karolina Lindqvist writes:
> lördagen den 7 februari 2004 18.01 you wrote:
> > This is not a bug, i386 support is dropped, gcc is configured to
> > generate code for i486 and up. IIRC the kernel binaries for i386 do
> > have a patch for emulation support for non-i386 instructions.
> 
> So it's not a bug, but a feature. I could have gussed that. It would be 
> helpful if libc6, or something, actually had a Depend on the required kernel 
> version. 
> I am running a vanilla debian kernel,  2.4.18-1-386 version 2.4.18.12-1, on 
> that machine, which obviously is not enough. 
> The corresponding kernel from sid is called
> 2.4.18-386 version 2.4.18-5. Will it solve the problem?
> Confusing.

don't know about the exact kernel package...

maybe the report should be kept open to document forht release, that
sun4c, armv? and i386 arre not supported anymore.

Message #20 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Cc: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, pb@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:10:17 +1100

On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Karolina Lindqvist writes:
> > l?rdagen den 7 februari 2004 18.01 you wrote:
> > > This is not a bug, i386 support is dropped, gcc is configured to
> > > generate code for i486 and up. IIRC the kernel binaries for i386 do
> > > have a patch for emulation support for non-i386 instructions.
> > 
> > So it's not a bug, but a feature. I could have gussed that. It would be 
> > helpful if libc6, or something, actually had a Depend on the required kernel 
> > version. 
> > I am running a vanilla debian kernel,  2.4.18-1-386 version 2.4.18.12-1, on 
> > that machine, which obviously is not enough. 
> > The corresponding kernel from sid is called
> > 2.4.18-386 version 2.4.18-5. Will it solve the problem?
> > Confusing.
> 
> don't know about the exact kernel package...
> 
> maybe the report should be kept open to document forht release, that
> sun4c, armv? and i386 arre not supported anymore.

2.4.18 is not in sid.  However, 2.4.24/2.6.0 in sid should both
emulate the needed instructions on 386.
-- 
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 #25 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>

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

Cc: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, pb@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 10:48:51 +0100

söndagen den 8 februari 2004 10.10 skrev Herbert Xu:

> 2.4.18 is not in sid.  However, 2.4.24/2.6.0 in sid should both
> emulate the needed instructions on 386.

You can't install 2.4.24 on a i386 system, since it depends on initrd-tools 
(>= 0.1.48) and 
modutils (>= 2.4.19) which are not in woody. The SID versions of those require 
the new libc6, which in turn require the new kernel running. So how to 
upgrade to that kernel on a 386?

Karolina

Message #30 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:28:01 +0100

* Karolina Lindqvist (pgd-karolinali@algonet.se) [040208 11:10]:
> söndagen den 8 februari 2004 10.10 skrev Herbert Xu:

> > 2.4.18 is not in sid.  However, 2.4.24/2.6.0 in sid should both
> > emulate the needed instructions on 386.
> 
> You can't install 2.4.24 on a i386 system, since it depends on initrd-tools 
> (>= 0.1.48) and 
> modutils (>= 2.4.19) which are not in woody. The SID versions of those require 
> the new libc6, which in turn require the new kernel running. So how to 
> upgrade to that kernel on a 386?

You add first
deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable initrd-tools module-init-tools
to your apt.sources-list and dist-upgrade only modutils and
initrd-tools. Afterwards, kernel, and afterwards the normal upgrade to
sarge.

Well, to be plain, I think a more recent modutils and initrd-tools
should be added to woody with the next point release, and also a new
kernel image, both for the boot floppies and in the archive, that
emulates 486-opcodes on 386. Also this should be IMHO be noted in
the Release-notes. (One could even consider how to force the users to
reboot into the new kernel on a 386 before allowing to install glibc.
Hm, any small pseudo-package, that's only configurable if 486-opcodes
can be executed, and glibc pre-depends on it?)


Cheers,
Andi

PS: When will you fix the RC-bug in kmymoney2 #228732?
-- 
   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 #35 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>

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

Cc: 231538@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: illegal instruction on a 386

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:59:06 +0100

söndagen den 8 februari 2004 11.28 skrev Andreas Barth:

> You add first
> deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable initrd-tools module-init-tools
> to your apt.sources-list and dist-upgrade only modutils and
> initrd-tools. Afterwards, kernel, and afterwards the normal upgrade to
> sarge.

Thank you, that worked.

It is probably documented somewhere, but when you have done a dist-upgrade 
(which have worked before) and the machine refuses to boot up again, you are 
not able to read the documentation for why it happened. It would be a nice 
touch and user-friendly that when the libc6 (or whatever) is installed, and 
is going to render the whole system unusable, you at least are given a 
warning.

Karolina

Message #40 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>

To: 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: A possible solution

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:35:47 -0200

A simple way to avoid problems when dist-upgrading would be to check in
the preinst for a working bswap. A small precompiled static binary could
be added to the preinst (it doesn't even have to use a C library, see
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html) and run
to check if using the emulated opcodes won't die with SIGILL or SIGSEGV.

-- 
Cesar Eduardo Barros
cesarb@nitnet.com.br
cesarb@dcc.ufrj.br

Message #45 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:10:35 +0900

At Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:35:47 -0200,
Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> A simple way to avoid problems when dist-upgrading would be to check in
> the preinst for a working bswap.
>
> A small precompiled static binary could
> be added to the preinst (it doesn't even have to use a C library, see
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html) and run
> to check if using the emulated opcodes won't die with SIGILL or SIGSEGV.

I think it's easier just use "uname -m".  I don't know bswap is 486
mandatory instruction or not, so it may be wrong, though.

I think Cesar's suggestion is good idea.  Checking processor class in
preinst and if it does not have "bswap" (so i386 class processor), we
stop to install and warn with libc6.preinst:

    if [ "$realarch" = i386 ]
    then
	kernel_ver=`uname -r`
	if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.24
	then	
	    echo WARNING: This machine has i386 class processor.
	    echo Debian sarge and later you need to use at least a 2.4.24 
	    echo or 2.6.0 kernel on i386.  Please upgrade your kernel 
	    echo before installing glibc.
	    echo The reason is that "bswap" instruction is not supported
	    echo on i386 class processors, and newer kernel can emulate
	    echo such lacking instructions.
	    exit 1
	fi
    fi

Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #50 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, md@linux.it

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:22:30 +0900

At Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:10:35 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:35:47 -0200,
> Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> > A simple way to avoid problems when dist-upgrading would be to check in
> > the preinst for a working bswap.
> >
> > A small precompiled static binary could
> > be added to the preinst (it doesn't even have to use a C library, see
> > http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html) and run
> > to check if using the emulated opcodes won't die with SIGILL or SIGSEGV.
> 
> I think it's easier just use "uname -m".  I don't know bswap is 486
> mandatory instruction or not, so it may be wrong, though.
> 
> I think Cesar's suggestion is good idea.  Checking processor class in
> preinst and if it does not have "bswap" (so i386 class processor), we
> stop to install and warn with libc6.preinst:
> 
>     if [ "$realarch" = i386 ]
>     then
> 	kernel_ver=`uname -r`
> 	if dpkg --compare-versions "$kernel_ver" lt 2.4.24
> 	then	
> 	    echo WARNING: This machine has i386 class processor.
> 	    echo Debian sarge and later you need to use at least a 2.4.24 
> 	    echo or 2.6.0 kernel on i386.  Please upgrade your kernel 
> 	    echo before installing glibc.
> 	    echo The reason is that "bswap" instruction is not supported
> 	    echo on i386 class processors, and newer kernel can emulate
> 	    echo such lacking instructions.
> 	    exit 1
> 	fi
>     fi

I've added the above checking code.  This stops installing glibc before
upgrading kernel.  I would like to close this bug using this patch.

BTW, 

> Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
> in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.

Is this ok?  Herbert?  Marco?  If not, I reassign this bug to such
packages.

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #55 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, md@linux.it

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:25:31 +1100

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:22:30PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> 
> > Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
> > in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.
> 
> Is this ok?  Herbert?  Marco?  If not, I reassign this bug to such
> packages.

initrd-tools does not depend on glibc so the version in sarge/sid
should suffice.
-- 
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 #60 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Dr. Tilo Levante" <tilo@levante.de>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <231538@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: libc6: ldconfig fail on AMD Duron

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:49:03 +0100

Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Followup-For: Bug #231538

The same happens not only on 386. I use a ADM Duron and have the same
problem.

tilo



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.0
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro

Versions of packages libc6 depends on:
ii  libdb1-compat                 2.1.3-7    The Berkeley database routines [gl

-- no debconf information

Message #65 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, md@linux.it

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:02:43 +0900

At Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:25:31 +1100,
Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
> > > in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.
> > 
> > Is this ok?  Herbert?  Marco?  If not, I reassign this bug to such
> > packages.
> 
> initrd-tools does not depend on glibc so the version in sarge/sid
> should suffice.

Ah, I found original bug report tried to use sid version kernel, so
exactly it's no relation to this bug with initrd-tools and modules.

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #70 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: "Dr. Tilo Levante" <tilo@levante.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: libc6: ldconfig fail on AMD Duron

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:09:22 +0900

At Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:49:03 +0100,
Dr. Tilo Levante <tilo@levante.de> wrote:
> The same happens not only on 386. I use a ADM Duron and have the same problem.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What's happened on your AMD Duron?  Original bug report is focused on
only "REAL I386 CLASS" processor.

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #75 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug status report?

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:30:34 -0500

What progress has been made and what still needs to be done?

Apparently current glibc now has the checking code in glibc to prevent it from 
being upgraded until *after* the kernel is upgraded (to 2.4.24 or 2.6.0).

However, as Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
> You can't install 2.4.24 on a i386 system, since it depends on initrd-tools 
> (>= 0.1.48) and 
> modutils (>= 2.4.19) which are not in woody. The SID versions of those 
require 
> the new libc6, which in turn require the new kernel running. So how to 
> upgrade to that kernel on a 386?

Andreas Barth wrote:
>You add first
>deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable initrd-tools module-init-tools
>to your apt.sources-list and dist-upgrade only modutils and
>initrd-tools. Afterwards, kernel, and afterwards the normal upgrade to
>sarge.

Obviously this is not really an acceptable upgrade path from woody to sarge!
We do want to ensure an straighforward upgrade path from woody on real i386s. 

Andreas Barth wrote:
>Well, to be plain, I think a more recent modutils and initrd-tools
>should be added to woody with the next point release, and also a new
>kernel image, both for the boot floppies and in the archive, that
>emulates 486-opcodes on 386. Also this should be IMHO be noted in
>the Release-notes.

Is this the plan?  This would require new packages in the next point release 
of woody, before sarge comes out, but I don't see that any progress has been 
made on that.

Replies to the bug trail please.

Message #80 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: Bug status report?

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:35:15 +0900

At Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:30:34 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> What progress has been made and what still needs to be done?
> 
> Apparently current glibc now has the checking code in glibc to prevent it from 
> being upgraded until *after* the kernel is upgraded (to 2.4.24 or 2.6.0).

I'm sorry that I don't still put the checking code.  I put it after
checking build and test.

> However, as Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
> > You can't install 2.4.24 on a i386 system, since it depends on initrd-tools 
> > (>= 0.1.48) and 
> > modutils (>= 2.4.19) which are not in woody. The SID versions of those 
> require 
> > the new libc6, which in turn require the new kernel running. So how to 
> > upgrade to that kernel on a 386?
> 
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >You add first
> >deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable initrd-tools module-init-tools
> >to your apt.sources-list and dist-upgrade only modutils and
> >initrd-tools. Afterwards, kernel, and afterwards the normal upgrade to
> >sarge.
> 
> Obviously this is not really an acceptable upgrade path from woody to sarge!
> We do want to ensure an straighforward upgrade path from woody on real i386s. 

AFAIK this problem was fixed.  kernel-image-2.4.24-2-686
(2.4.24-2woody.1) is now available on woody.  The thing which user
needs to do is only updating kernel 2.4.24, before upgrading to sarge.

> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >Well, to be plain, I think a more recent modutils and initrd-tools
> >should be added to woody with the next point release, and also a new
> >kernel image, both for the boot floppies and in the archive, that
> >emulates 486-opcodes on 386. Also this should be IMHO be noted in
> >the Release-notes.
> 
> Is this the plan?  This would require new packages in the next point release 
> of woody, before sarge comes out, but I don't see that any progress has been 
> made on that.

Well, I agree that release notes should describe about 386 problem
(386 processor machine needs to update its kernel 2.4.24 before
upgrading sarge).  But... who should we report to?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #85 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: Bug status report?

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:39:37 +0100

* GOTO Masanori (gotom@debian.or.jp) [040312 07:55]:
> Well, I agree that release notes should describe about 386 problem
> (386 processor machine needs to update its kernel 2.4.24 before
> upgrading sarge).  But... who should we report to?

According to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization it's
Release Notes -- <debian-doc@lists.debian.org>.


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 #90 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: Bug status report?

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:27:44 -0500

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:30:34 -0500,
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 
>>What progress has been made and what still needs to be done?
>>
>>Apparently current glibc now has the checking code in glibc to prevent it from 
>>being upgraded until *after* the kernel is upgraded (to 2.4.24 or 2.6.0).
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that I don't still put the checking code.  I put it after
> checking build and test.
OK, great.  Given the information below, it seems to me that this bug 
can be closed after you do that.


>>However, as Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
>>
>>>You can't install 2.4.24 on a i386 system, since it depends on initrd-tools 
>>>(>= 0.1.48) and 
>>>modutils (>= 2.4.19) which are not in woody. The SID versions of those 
>>
>>require 
>>
>>>the new libc6, which in turn require the new kernel running. So how to 
>>>upgrade to that kernel on a 386?
>>
>>Andreas Barth wrote:
>>
>>>You add first
>>>deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable initrd-tools module-init-tools
>>>to your apt.sources-list and dist-upgrade only modutils and
>>>initrd-tools. Afterwards, kernel, and afterwards the normal upgrade to
>>>sarge.
>>
>>Obviously this is not really an acceptable upgrade path from woody to sarge!
>>We do want to ensure an straighforward upgrade path from woody on real i386s. 
> 
> 
> AFAIK this problem was fixed.  kernel-image-2.4.24-2-686
> (2.4.24-2woody.1) is now available on woody.  The thing which user
> needs to do is only updating kernel 2.4.24, before upgrading to sarge.
Oh, OK!  :-)  That's good then.  :-)

>>Andreas Barth wrote:
>>
>>>Well, to be plain, I think a more recent modutils and initrd-tools
>>>should be added to woody with the next point release, and also a new
>>>kernel image, both for the boot floppies and in the archive, that
>>>emulates 486-opcodes on 386. Also this should be IMHO be noted in
>>>the Release-notes.
>>
>>Is this the plan?  This would require new packages in the next point release 
>>of woody, before sarge comes out, but I don't see that any progress has been 
>>made on that.
> 
> 
> Well, I agree that release notes should describe about 386 problem
> (386 processor machine needs to update its kernel 2.4.24 before
> upgrading sarge).  But... who should we report to?
Hmm.  debian-release@lists.debian.org?  I suppose someone there is 
responsible for release notes.

> Regards,
> -- gotom
> 
> 

Message #95 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: 231538@bugs.debian.org

Subject: *sigh*

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:56:31 -0500

Kernel 2.4.24 is *not* present in woody.
It is in woody-proposed-updates.

Please, someone, remember to convince Martin Schulze to accept it.  :-)

Message #102 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:39:05 +0900

At Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:56:31 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Kernel 2.4.24 is *not* present in woody.
> It is in woody-proposed-updates.
> 
> Please, someone, remember to convince Martin Schulze to accept it.  :-)

I don't know pure "woody" can have new kernel 2.4.24 package.  Martin,
and Herbert?

If "woody" does not have new kernel 2.4.24 package, then real i386
processor machine is hard to install newer glibc on sid because
the latest glibc depends on kernel 2.4.24 or later.

So if "woody" can't have 2.4.24, then should we add message to display
"you need to install kernel 2.4.24 (it's available on the
woody-proposed-updates)" with libc6.preinst?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #107 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:42:24 +1100

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:39:05AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:56:31 -0500,
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Kernel 2.4.24 is *not* present in woody.
> > It is in woody-proposed-updates.
> > 
> > Please, someone, remember to convince Martin Schulze to accept it.  :-)
> 
> I don't know pure "woody" can have new kernel 2.4.24 package.  Martin,
> and Herbert?
> 
> If "woody" does not have new kernel 2.4.24 package, then real i386
> processor machine is hard to install newer glibc on sid because
> the latest glibc depends on kernel 2.4.24 or later.

My 2.4.24 packages work in pure "woody" + initrd-tools which is available
in woody-proposed-updates as well.

> So if "woody" can't have 2.4.24, then should we add message to display
> "you need to install kernel 2.4.24 (it's available on the
> woody-proposed-updates)" with libc6.preinst?

That sounds good especially for 386 users.
-- 
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 #112 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:34:47 +0100

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:56:31 -0500,
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Kernel 2.4.24 is *not* present in woody.
> > It is in woody-proposed-updates.
> > 
> > Please, someone, remember to convince Martin Schulze to accept it.  :-)
> 
> I don't know pure "woody" can have new kernel 2.4.24 package.  Martin,
> and Herbert?

Why should it?  The most recent Kernel in woody is 2.4.19.  There
won't be any newer ones than the ones with which woody was released.

> If "woody" does not have new kernel 2.4.24 package, then real i386

It doesn't.

> processor machine is hard to install newer glibc on sid because
> the latest glibc depends on kernel 2.4.24 or later.

What does sid have to do with woody?

> So if "woody" can't have 2.4.24, then should we add message to display
> "you need to install kernel 2.4.24 (it's available on the
> woody-proposed-updates)" with libc6.preinst?

You can't depend on the package stay in proposed-updates forever.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #117 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:09:35 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Schulze wrote:
| What does sid have to do with woody?
The problem is that of providing an upgrade path from woody to sarge on
real i386 machines.  Glibc (and everything else in userland) in
sarge/sid requires a kernel with the i486 emulation patch for such
machines.  There is no such kernel in woody.  The kernels in sarge/sid
cannot be installed on a woody system because they require newer
modutils and initrd-tools, which require new glibc.

The best solution anyone has come up with is to provide a kernel in
woody which can be installed in woody on real i386 machines, and which
includes the i486 emulation patch.  Once that is installed, the upgrade
to sarge can then be performed.

If you have a better solution, be sure to suggest it, but I don't think
there is one.  (Recall that the requirement of the 486 emulation patch
was necessary to deal with a major, difficult ABI problem for C++.)

If you have specific preferences for the form this updated kernel will
take (perhaps you'd prefer a patched version of 2.4.19?), hash it out
with Herbert.  I don't particularly care what form it takes, as long as
there's a way to upgrade a real i386 from woody to sarge without going
outside Debian.

This must be solved before sarge can be released, given the consensus
that i386 support was not going to be dropped; and there is no known way
to solve it within sid/sarge.  It could be done by setting up a special
page on www.debian.org for downloading the patched kernel packages, and
pointing all real i386 users to that in the Sarge release notes; but it
seems much more sensible to put the patched kernel release in a point
update of woody, and point the real i386 users to *that* in the Sarge
release notes.

Hope this helps explain the problem, why it's 'critical', and why it has
something to do with woody.

- --Nathanael Nerode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAXfZ/RGZ0aC4lkIIRAqKDAJ4oCi5OgYuCMBec6EzEEFG9HT0IlQCfZ9dN
djzO04onZMcHY9PcxSClXn4=
=FXPU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #122 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

Cc: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:32:30 +0900

At Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:09:35 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> | What does sid have to do with woody?
> The problem is that of providing an upgrade path from woody to sarge on
> real i386 machines.  Glibc (and everything else in userland) in
> sarge/sid requires a kernel with the i486 emulation patch for such
> machines.  There is no such kernel in woody.  The kernels in sarge/sid
> cannot be installed on a woody system because they require newer
> modutils and initrd-tools, which require new glibc.
> 
> The best solution anyone has come up with is to provide a kernel in
> woody which can be installed in woody on real i386 machines, and which
> includes the i486 emulation patch.  Once that is installed, the upgrade
> to sarge can then be performed.
> 
> If you have a better solution, be sure to suggest it, but I don't think
> there is one.  (Recall that the requirement of the 486 emulation patch
> was necessary to deal with a major, difficult ABI problem for C++.)
> 
> If you have specific preferences for the form this updated kernel will
> take (perhaps you'd prefer a patched version of 2.4.19?), hash it out
> with Herbert.  I don't particularly care what form it takes, as long as
> there's a way to upgrade a real i386 from woody to sarge without going
> outside Debian.
> 
> This must be solved before sarge can be released, given the consensus
> that i386 support was not going to be dropped; and there is no known way
> to solve it within sid/sarge.  It could be done by setting up a special
> page on www.debian.org for downloading the patched kernel packages, and
> pointing all real i386 users to that in the Sarge release notes; but it
> seems much more sensible to put the patched kernel release in a point
> update of woody, and point the real i386 users to *that* in the Sarge
> release notes.
> 
> Hope this helps explain the problem, why it's 'critical', and why it has
> something to do with woody.

Thanks Nathanael, exactly.

So, don't we have plan to put newer kernel 2.4.24 into woody?  Then I
simply put the description which I described the previous mail:

> So if "woody" can't have 2.4.24, then should we add message to display
> "you need to install kernel 2.4.24 (it's available on the
> woody-proposed-updates)" with libc6.preinst?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #127 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:44:53 +0100

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> So, don't we have plan to put newer kernel 2.4.24 into woody?  Then I
> simply put the description which I described the previous mail:

No, "we" don't.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
		-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #132 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:54:45 +0100

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > | What does sid have to do with woody?
> > The problem is that of providing an upgrade path from woody to sarge on
> > real i386 machines.  Glibc (and everything else in userland) in
> > sarge/sid requires a kernel with the i486 emulation patch for such
> > machines.  There is no such kernel in woody.  The kernels in sarge/sid
> > cannot be installed on a woody system because they require newer
> > modutils and initrd-tools, which require new glibc.
> > 
> > The best solution anyone has come up with is to provide a kernel in
> > woody which can be installed in woody on real i386 machines, and which
> > includes the i486 emulation patch.  Once that is installed, the upgrade
> > to sarge can then be performed.

Thanks for the explanation, now I understand the dilemma.

I have another solution to propose: Provide an upgrade-for-real-i386
directory, including a README and kernel packages to install before
upgrading to sarge.  We've done a similar thing from bo->potato or
something.

Looking at the current kernel mess, this is the only possible way.

Keep in mind that:
  - woody has four 2.4 kernel source packages (which I'd like to keep
    in sync since security is difficult enough already)
  - woody won't get a kernel more recent than 2.4.19 which is required
    for mips
  - woody 2.4/i386 cannot be updated outside of proposed
    updates/security due to a binary incompatibility introduced with
    the ptrace fix, rendering modules unusable

Hence, I believe that an upgrade directory is the way to go.  The
kernel package should be maintained until sarge is released and
security patches added.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
		-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #137 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

To: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, 231538@bugs.debian.org

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:02:55 +0100

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:54:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Hence, I believe that an upgrade directory is the way to go.  The
> kernel package should be maintained until sarge is released and
> security patches added.

Can you patch the i48 instruction emulator into a 2.4.19 kernel?
It doesn't look exactly intrusive..

Message #142 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Cc: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:05:53 +1100

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:02:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> Can you patch the i48 instruction emulator into a 2.4.19 kernel?
> It doesn't look exactly intrusive..

Certainly.  In fact it should work in 2.4.18 as well.  If this
is acceptable to Martin then I can build a set of kernel packages
for it pretty quickly.
-- 
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 #147 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Cc: 231538@bugs.debian.org, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:43:53 +0100

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:54:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Hence, I believe that an upgrade directory is the way to go.  The
> > kernel package should be maintained until sarge is released and
> > security patches added.
> 
> Can you patch the i48 instruction emulator into a 2.4.19 kernel?
> It doesn't look exactly intrusive..

That would only help mips.

I wonder what a mips machine would need with an i486 emulator.

For IA-32 we would have to patch 2.4.18, but we cannot properly
update those packages in woody without people losing their
modules (would hurt a bit on laptops...).  So that's a no-go.

Hence, the upgrade directory for real 80386 machines.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
There are lies, statistics and benchmarks.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #152 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:25:13 +0900

At Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:43:53 +0100,
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:54:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Hence, I believe that an upgrade directory is the way to go.  The
> > > kernel package should be maintained until sarge is released and
> > > security patches added.
> > 
> > Can you patch the i48 instruction emulator into a 2.4.19 kernel?
> > It doesn't look exactly intrusive..
> 
> That would only help mips.
> 
> I wonder what a mips machine would need with an i486 emulator.
> 
> For IA-32 we would have to patch 2.4.18, but we cannot properly
> update those packages in woody without people losing their
> modules (would hurt a bit on laptops...).  So that's a no-go.

So you don't have any intenstion to install new 2.4 kernel with
i486 emulation patch.

> Hence, the upgrade directory for real 80386 machines.

What does it mean?

If there is no plan to support upgrade-path for i386 machines, then I
put the message "Use woody-proposed-updates 2.4.24 kernel" at
libc6.preinst for 80386 machine.  Then, we don't need to change the
current woody kernels.  I think it's the simplest fix.  Is it OK?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #157 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, ftpmaster@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:46:25 +0200

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > That would only help mips.
> > 
> > I wonder what a mips machine would need with an i486 emulator.
> > 
> > For IA-32 we would have to patch 2.4.18, but we cannot properly
> > update those packages in woody without people losing their
> > modules (would hurt a bit on laptops...).  So that's a no-go.
> 
> So you don't have any intenstion to install new 2.4 kernel with
> i486 emulation patch.

Exactly, since this would harm all notebook users.

> > Hence, the upgrade directory for real 80386 machines.
> 
> What does it mean?

I thought that I've explained this already:

I have another solution to propose: Provide an upgrade-for-real-i386
directory, including a README and kernel packages to install before
upgrading to sarge.  We've done a similar thing from bo->potato or
something.

This will require coordination with the release manager and the
ftpmasters to provide dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386 which should
contain the kernel packages and a readme file.

> If there is no plan to support upgrade-path for i386 machines, then I

Nobody said that there is no plan to support an upgrade-path for i386
machines.  We just cannot simply replace the kernel in the stable
distribution anymore due to fucked up dependencies and kernel
vulnerabilities.

> put the message "Use woody-proposed-updates 2.4.24 kernel" at
> libc6.preinst for 80386 machine.  Then, we don't need to change the
> current woody kernels.  I think it's the simplest fix.  Is it OK?

No.  Packages will eventually vanish from the proposed-updates
directory.  We'll need an upgrade-i386 directory as we've had a couple
of releases before.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #162 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, ftpmaster@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:32:34 +0900

At Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:46:25 +0200,
Martin Schulze wrote:
> GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > That would only help mips.
> > > 
> > > I wonder what a mips machine would need with an i486 emulator.
> > > 
> > > For IA-32 we would have to patch 2.4.18, but we cannot properly
> > > update those packages in woody without people losing their
> > > modules (would hurt a bit on laptops...).  So that's a no-go.
> > 
> > So you don't have any intenstion to install new 2.4 kernel with
> > i486 emulation patch.
> 
> Exactly, since this would harm all notebook users.
> 
> > > Hence, the upgrade directory for real 80386 machines.
> > 
> > What does it mean?
> 
> I thought that I've explained this already:
> 
> I have another solution to propose: Provide an upgrade-for-real-i386
> directory, including a README and kernel packages to install before
> upgrading to sarge.  We've done a similar thing from bo->potato or
> something.
> 
> This will require coordination with the release manager and the
> ftpmasters to provide dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386 which should
> contain the kernel packages and a readme file.

That's nice solution if it's acceptable.

> > If there is no plan to support upgrade-path for i386 machines, then I
> 
> Nobody said that there is no plan to support an upgrade-path for i386
> machines.  We just cannot simply replace the kernel in the stable
> distribution anymore due to fucked up dependencies and kernel
> vulnerabilities.
> 
> > put the message "Use woody-proposed-updates 2.4.24 kernel" at
> > libc6.preinst for 80386 machine.  Then, we don't need to change the
> > current woody kernels.  I think it's the simplest fix.  Is it OK?
> 
> No.  Packages will eventually vanish from the proposed-updates
> directory.  We'll need an upgrade-i386 directory as we've had a couple
> of releases before.

Ah, I understand why my proposal is not good.  Martin, thanks for
pointing it out.

So... I don't add "use woody-proposed-updates" message into
libc6.preinst, I keep them as the current one.  I think Bug#231538 can
be closed when 2.3.2.ds1-12 is released.  But the current thread is
useful for keeping discussing to make dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386
for the near future sarge release.  I would clone this bug and
reassign it to ftp.debian.org or ftp-master.  Nathanael, OK?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #167 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, ftpmaster@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:38:24 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

GOTO Masanori wrote:
| At Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:46:25 +0200,
| Martin Schulze wrote:
|
<snip>
|>I have another solution to propose: Provide an upgrade-for-real-i386
|>directory, including a README and kernel packages to install before
|>upgrading to sarge.  We've done a similar thing from bo->potato or
|>something.
|>
|>This will require coordination with the release manager and the
|>ftpmasters to provide dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386 which should
|>contain the kernel packages and a readme file.

<snip>
| So... I don't add "use woody-proposed-updates" message into
| libc6.preinst, I keep them as the current one.  I think Bug#231538 can
| be closed when 2.3.2.ds1-12 is released.  But the current thread is
| useful for keeping discussing to make dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386
| for the near future sarge release.  I would clone this bug and
| reassign it to ftp.debian.org or ftp-master.  Nathanael, OK?
Yes; sounds great.  :-)  I have no idea whose job it is to create the
upgrade-i386 directory (ftp.debian.org, I guess), but please clone and
assign to the appropriate person.

Herbert's job, then, is to upload the appropriate packages to that
directory; the RM's job is to make sure it's mentioned prominently in
the release notes.  And someone has to create the README, but that
shouldn't be much of a job.  ("You must upgrade to these packages, and
reboot with the new kernel, before installing sarge".)

Remember to tell Karolina, who opened the bug in the first place, when
it's all done.  :-)

| Regards,
| -- gotom

Glad this is getting dealt with!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAa9UARGZ0aC4lkIIRAlEWAJ95b9TP31PT93mC2HUTX+h5ZezHcQCdETNk
v4mTmUkJWMdvW4O4PqFK+ek=
=V8eO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #172 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, ftpmaster@debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>, 231538-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:27:25 +0900

clone 231538 -1
reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
retitle -1 sarge needs upgrade-i386 directory which gives us upgrade-path for real i386 architecture
thanks

I'm sorry posting this mail to so many people...

Summary:

 - Original bug #231538 will be fixed by debian-glibc maintainer team
   at the next glibc 2.3.2.ds1-12 which adds the code to prevent
   installing sarge's glibc on real 80386 arch with kernel < 2.4.24.

 - Debian decided to make dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386 for providing
   upgrade path for real 80386 architecture.

 - ftp.debian.org maintainer needs to make upgrade-i386 directory with
   appropriate documents/binaries/libraries.

 - Release document/management team need to write additional notes
   about upgrade-i386 issue into sarge release announce documents for
   i386 architecture.

 - Kernel maintainer may need to put kernel 2.4.24 or newer into
   upgrade-i386 directory.  The newer kernel has 486 emulation code
   which can install sarge's libraries even on real 80386
   architecture.

At Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:38:24 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> | So... I don't add "use woody-proposed-updates" message into
> | libc6.preinst, I keep them as the current one.  I think Bug#231538 can
> | be closed when 2.3.2.ds1-12 is released.  But the current thread is
> | useful for keeping discussing to make dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386
> | for the near future sarge release.  I would clone this bug and
> | reassign it to ftp.debian.org or ftp-master.  Nathanael, OK?
> Yes; sounds great.  :-)  I have no idea whose job it is to create the
> upgrade-i386 directory (ftp.debian.org, I guess), but please clone and
> assign to the appropriate person.

OK, I cloned it and I assigned it to ftp.debian.org.  Martin seems 
to prepare making upgrade-i386 directory, though.

> Herbert's job, then, is to upload the appropriate packages to that
> directory; the RM's job is to make sure it's mentioned prominently in
> the release notes.  And someone has to create the README, but that
> shouldn't be much of a job.  ("You must upgrade to these packages, and
> reboot with the new kernel, before installing sarge".)

Yup.  Before releasing sarge, we need to work for upgrade-i386 directory.

Thanks to all people who comments to this bug!

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #177 received at 231538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>, 231538@bugs.debian.org, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>, 231538-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:47:18 +0200

GOTO Masanori wrote:
> clone 231538 -1
> reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
> retitle -1 sarge needs upgrade-i386 directory which gives us upgrade-path for real i386 architecture
> thanks
> 
> I'm sorry posting this mail to so many people...
> 
> Summary:
> 
>  - Original bug #231538 will be fixed by debian-glibc maintainer team
>    at the next glibc 2.3.2.ds1-12 which adds the code to prevent
>    installing sarge's glibc on real 80386 arch with kernel < 2.4.24.
> 
>  - Debian decided to make dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386 for providing
>    upgrade path for real 80386 architecture.
> 
>  - ftp.debian.org maintainer needs to make upgrade-i386 directory with
>    appropriate documents/binaries/libraries.
> 
>  - Release document/management team need to write additional notes
>    about upgrade-i386 issue into sarge release announce documents for
>    i386 architecture.
> 
>  - Kernel maintainer may need to put kernel 2.4.24 or newer into
>    upgrade-i386 directory.  The newer kernel has 486 emulation code
>    which can install sarge's libraries even on real 80386
>    architecture.

FYI: I've added this to http://people.debian.org/~joey/pr/3.1/i386.html

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #188 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>

To: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: *sigh*

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:15:44 +0100

Hi,

I'm not sure why this was cloned to ftp.debian.org...

>  - ftp.debian.org maintainer needs to make upgrade-i386 directory with
>    appropriate documents/binaries/libraries.

...as, someone's going to have to provide us with the appropriate
documents/binaries/libraries.  We can create the upgrade-i386 tree,
but populating it is someone else's problem.

So, until someone makes a BYHAND upload, there's nothing for us to
do...

-- 
James

Message #193 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Cc: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, md@linux.it, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:27:16 +0200

* Herbert Xu (herbert@gondor.apana.org.au) [040302 08:10]:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:22:30PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > 
> > > Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
> > > in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.

> > Is this ok?  Herbert?  Marco?  If not, I reassign this bug to such
> > packages.
 
> initrd-tools does not depend on glibc so the version in sarge/sid
> should suffice.

But initrd-tools from sarge wants cramfsprogs (>= 1.1-4), dash; both
is not part of woody. I'd propose to use it from backports.org (which
is changed to cramfsprogs (>= 1.1-3), dash|ash; or is there a problem
with that)?

Well, and I'd also propose to take the backport from modutils from the
same source.

However, the kernel package could be taken out of the pool / from
sarge.

@ftpmasters: How should these packages be upload? Just as "byhand",
and you sort it in? And how is the packages-file generated? In which
form do you want to have the README-file for that directory?



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 #198 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, 241497@bugs.debian.org, 231538@bugs.debian.org, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>, Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, pb@debian.org, Karolina Lindqvist <pgd-karolinali@algonet.se>, md@linux.it, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#231538: A possible solution

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:31:39 +0900

At Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:27:16 +0200,
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Herbert Xu (herbert@gondor.apana.org.au) [040302 08:10]:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:22:30PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Well newer initrd-tools module-init-tools should be in woody 
> > > > in order to upgrade to sarge smoothly.
> 
> > > Is this ok?  Herbert?  Marco?  If not, I reassign this bug to such
> > > packages.
>  
> > initrd-tools does not depend on glibc so the version in sarge/sid
> > should suffice.
> 
> But initrd-tools from sarge wants cramfsprogs (>= 1.1-4), dash; both
> is not part of woody. I'd propose to use it from backports.org (which
> is changed to cramfsprogs (>= 1.1-3), dash|ash; or is there a problem
> with that)?
> 
> Well, and I'd also propose to take the backport from modutils from the
> same source.
> 
> However, the kernel package could be taken out of the pool / from
> sarge.
> 
> @ftpmasters: How should these packages be upload? Just as "byhand",
> and you sort it in? And how is the packages-file generated? In which
> form do you want to have the README-file for that directory?

Please look at the whole discussion of #231538.  Joey made a good
summary at:

	http://people.debian.org/~joey/pr/3.1/i386.html

#231538 was closed because I introduced a patch for glibc preinst
kernel version check.  But as you pointed out, it's true that we need
to create upgrade-i386-80386 for sarge to support smooth upgrade path
for real i386 machine.

The problem is: (1) we're lazy, no one has prepared upgrade-i386-80386
directory, (2) no one has real i386 80386 machine to test that
directory.

If you have real i386 machine, could you work for this issue?

Regards,
-- gotom

Message #203 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Critical bug still not addressed: upgrade-i386

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:56:45 -0400

Reminder: the directory
dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386
still has not been created, let alone populated.

I would expect this to be a hard requirement before sarge can be 
released; otherwise upgrades from woody for real i386 machines will not 
be possible.

It will need to contain a kernel for i386 machines which
(1) installs cleanly on woody
(2) contains and enables the 486 emulation patch (introduced with 
Debian's kernel 2.4.24, but really could be attached to any 2.4 version, 
I believe).

This is only for actual i386's (not i486's or higher), so this should 
really just be one kernel image package (plus perhaps certain modules 
packages).  Probably the safest way to go is to
(1) take the newest kernel/modules packages in woody for real i386
(2) Add and enable the 486 emulation patch
(3) Make the version numbering just above the version number for the 
current packages in woody
(4) Disable building anything except the real i386 flavor
(5) Build it.
(6) Upload source and binary packages to dists/sarge/main/upgrade-i386
(7) Ask for testing (and repeat if necessary).  I wouldn't actually 
expect any problems if doing it this way since the change is actually 
fairly localized.

Perhaps someone with experience in building kernel packages could do 
1-5; it doesn't look like *that* much work, since you're only building 
for one single flavor, but it's rather hard for someone with no 
experience to decipher the kernel package build scheme in woody.  Once 
the packages are ready, we can all worry about getting them into the 
appropriate place.  :-)

Message #208 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Volunteering to work on it

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:32:27 +0200

Hi.

If all goes well, I will aquire a real 386 system tomorrow. I will then
be able to help working on the upgrade issue.

Are there other areas apart from testing the kernel once it is available
that on could help with?

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Message #213 received at 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rob Bradford <robster@debian.org>

To: 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org

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

Subject: Include kernel with i486 emulation in 3.0r3

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:29:56 +0100

I think we should push this matter through with an updated kernel in a 3.0r3
update before the release of sarge. People could then upgrade to that before
upgrading to sarge. And in my opinion would make the upgrade process much
simpler and more straightforward. And as respect to security updates, this will
need to be maintained as long as woody support is maintained.

Cheers,

Rob
-- 
Rob 'robster' Bradford
http://robster.org.uk

Message #218 received at 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: Rob Bradford <robster@debian.org>

Cc: 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Include kernel with i486 emulation in 3.0r3

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:45:16 +0200

* Rob Bradford (robster@debian.org) [040925 18:25]:
> I think we should push this matter through with an updated kernel in a 3.0r3
> update before the release of sarge. People could then upgrade to that before
> upgrading to sarge. And in my opinion would make the upgrade process much
> simpler and more straightforward. And as respect to security updates, this will
> need to be maintained as long as woody support is maintained.

IIRC there is still a serious problem with the i486 emulation. As long
as this is not solved, there is no reason to include it in any stable
release. This said, I'd of course welcome if the emulation becomes
stable enough for release.


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 #223 received at 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Rob Bradford <robster@debian.org>

Cc: 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Include kernel with i486 emulation in 3.0r3

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:41:19 -0700

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

On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 04:29:56PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> I think we should push this matter through with an updated kernel in a 3.0r3
> update before the release of sarge. People could then upgrade to that before
> upgrading to sarge. And in my opinion would make the upgrade process much
> simpler and more straightforward. And as respect to security updates, this will
> need to be maintained as long as woody support is maintained.

Aside from the fact that the necessary emulation patch isn't ready, this
would mean backporting the patch to a 2.4.18 kernel (since we can't
break the kernel ABI in 3.0), which would probably be more trouble than
it's worth.

Additionally, an upgrade-i386 directory would provide a usable upgrade
path for the length of sarge's lifetime, but an update to 3.0r3 would
only be usable until oldstable was kicked from the archive.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

Message #228 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#241497: Volunteering to work on it

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:59:40 +0200

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:32:27AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> If all goes well, I will aquire a real 386 system tomorrow. I will then
> be able to help working on the upgrade issue.
> 
> Are there other areas apart from testing the kernel once it is available
> that on could help with?

My 386 box is now up and running. If there is anything to test, I will
gladly do so.

I heard various rumours about problems with the 486-emulation patch.
I was unable to find any written evidence on that with Google and by
searching lists.d.o. Are there any pointers available where one can
read about the current status of the patch?

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Message #233 received at 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>

To: Rob Bradford <robster@debian.org>

Cc: 241497-quiet@bugs.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Include kernel with i486 emulation in 3.0r3

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:53:45 +0200

Rob Bradford wrote:
> I think we should push this matter through with an updated kernel in a 3.0r3
> update before the release of sarge. People could then upgrade to that before
> upgrading to sarge. And in my opinion would make the upgrade process much
> simpler and more straightforward. And as respect to security updates, this will
> need to be maintained as long as woody support is maintained.

Adding new features to the kernel in stable besides closing security
bugs is not an option for Debian stable.

Apart from that, it's very questionable if there will ever be another
update to the current stable Debian release.  Hence, you must not
depend on it actually happening.

Besides that, it's still not a guarantee that our 80386 users will
install the kernel prior to updating to sarge.

And just to add more annoyances, we already have the problem with
kernel-image-2.4.18 != kernel-image-2.4.18-1 for Debian stable and
proposed-upgrades.  Where did you want to apply the i486 emulation?

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it!  -- Mark Twain

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Message #238 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

To: 241497@bugs.debian.org, 241497-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Please test potential upgrade kernel

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:59:41 -0400

If you
(a) have a real-i386 (i.e. not 486 or newer) running woody
(b) want to try to upgrade it to sarge
(c) are willing to risk total breakage

Then please test my upgrade kernel.  This is for *testing purposes only* 
at this point.  If you're willing to test it, follow the following 
procedure, and notify me (neroden@twcny.rr.com) at the first step which 
doesn't work (or tell me if it all works).

The procedure is this:
(1) Download and install the upgrade kernel packages.  They are at
http://mirror.wolffelaar.nl/neroden/upgrade-i386

These two .debs are what you want:
kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-386upgrade_2.4.18-1_i386.deb
kernel-image-2.4.18-386upgrade_2.4.18-1_i386.deb

To install, run (as root)
dpkg -i kernel-pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-386upgrade_2.4.18-1_i386.deb 
kernel-image-2.4.18-386upgrade_2.4.18-1_i386.deb

(You only need the pcmcia-modules package if you were using an old 
pcmcia-modules package of one variety or another and need PCMCIA modules 
for something important like network access.)

Run lilo or whatever else you need to do to boot into the new kernel.

(2) Reboot with the upgrade kernel.

(3) libc6's preinst is not currently bright enough to recognize that the 
transition kernel is OK, so you have to perform a magic dance as root. 
:-(  This will most certainly not be necessary in the final version.

First put a file with the following contents into uname.tmp (leave off 
the 'cut here' bits!)

--cut here--
#! /bin/sh
/bin/echo `/bin/uname.distrib "$@" | /bin/sed 's/i386/i486/'`
--cut here--

Then do the following:

mv /bin/uname /bin/uname.distrib
dpkg-divert --add /bin/uname --divert /bin/uname.distrib
cp uname.tmp /bin/uname
chown root /bin/uname
chgrp root /bin/uname
chmod 0755 /bin/uname

(4) Finally, you can try upgrading.
Point your sources.list to sarge.
apt-get update.
apt-get dist-upgrade (or whatever you do normally for such an upgrade).

(5) Check that the "Required" packages upgraded, including libc6, 
modutils, and libstdc++5.  (If packages other than Required and 
Important packages failed to upgrade, it's likely to be some other 
unrelated upgrade problem.  Tell me but continue.)

(6) Install a regular kernel from sarge of your choice.  This should be 
possible now that modutils &c have been upgraded.  Do whatever you need 
to do with lilo, etc. to boot from it.

(7) Reboot with the regular kernel from sarge.

(8) Undo the magic dance (as root):
rm /bin/uname
dpkg-divert --remove /bin/uname

(9) Uninstall the transitional kernel packages (using whatever method 
you usually use).

--
Now, if this actually works (!) then we can polish out the rough spots 
and turn it into a reasonable upgrade path.  If it generates unexpected 
problems -- which is likely ;-) -- then I have bugs to fix. 
Particularly if the 486 emulation simply Doesn't Work and causes 
horrible crashes.

Message #246 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: <wish@dumain.com>

To: neroden@twcny.rr.com

Cc: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: re: Please test potential upgrade kernel

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:49:45 +0000

Hi,
do you still need someone with a real i386 to test your 
kernel for upgrading to sarge (Bug #241497)?  The last 
comment is over 2 months old and the URL you give for
the packages doesn't appear to exist anymore.  However
the bug is still open and I have a couple of i386
that could be used for testing your packages.


Bill Hay

Message #251 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: wish@dumain.com, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Cc: neroden@twcny.rr.com

Subject: Re: Bug#241497: Please test potential upgrade kernel

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:36:57 +0100

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:49:45PM +0000, wish@dumain.com wrote:
> do you still need someone with a real i386 to test your 
> kernel for upgrading to sarge (Bug #241497)?  The last 
> comment is over 2 months old and the URL you give for
> the packages doesn't appear to exist anymore.  However
> the bug is still open and I have a couple of i386
> that could be used for testing your packages.

We have tested the upgrade with a kernel from sarge and will probably go
for that instead of the backported version mentioned in the bug report.
Currently I don't think that much testing is necessary here, my notes
about it are at http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade-i386/ if you're
interested, though.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Message #264 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org

Cc: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:31:55 +0100

Hi all.

As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
(or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
upgrades.
To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.

Because of the pain to maintain a kernel backport over the lifetime
of sarge we have decided to only offer backports of the needed tools
(modutils, module-init-tools and initrd-tools) to use stock sarge
kernels on woody.

It is planned to upload these files together with some documentation
into a upgrade-kernel (or whatever else name the ftpmasters will prefer)
directory in the archive.

I've prepared the necessary backports and some rudimentary documentation
and put it online at
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/

We now need people that
 - test the backports
 - read/comment on/improve the documentation

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Message #269 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:42:26 +0100

Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> upgrades.
> To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.

JFTR, all mips/mipsel subarchitectures are also affected. For those,
however, the sarge kernel without userland backports is good enough,
because modules aren't needed for basic system operation.


Thiemo

Message #274 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:54:38 +0000

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> upgrades.
> To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.

It's all hppa machines, not just hppa64.

> I've prepared the necessary backports and some rudimentary documentation
> and put it online at
> http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/

I'll give it a try now.

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain

Message #279 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Robin Harmsen" <Robin@RHarmsen.nl>

To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>, <debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>

Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:57:35 +0100

Hi,

at this moment I am testing the Debian Installer on a SS5 (sun4m I thougt)
cause I wanted a newer kernel then 2.2.20. but it isn't working very well

I am willing to test this upgrade-kernel to get a beter kernel and be able 
to do a woody->sarge upgrade
I think I will start with it right afther I finished my test with the debian 
installer and filled in a report

I hope I will be able to help :)

Greetings

Robin Harmsen
Robin@RHarmsen.nl
http://www.rharmsen.nl



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Lichtenheld" <djpig@debian.org>
To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>; <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>; 
<debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>
Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades


> Hi all.
>
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> upgrades.
> To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.
>
> Because of the pain to maintain a kernel backport over the lifetime
> of sarge we have decided to only offer backports of the needed tools
> (modutils, module-init-tools and initrd-tools) to use stock sarge
> kernels on woody.
>
> It is planned to upload these files together with some documentation
> into a upgrade-kernel (or whatever else name the ftpmasters will prefer)
> directory in the archive.
>
> I've prepared the necessary backports and some rudimentary documentation
> and put it online at
> http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/
>
> We now need people that
> - test the backports
> - read/comment on/improve the documentation
>
> Gruesse,
> -- 
> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
> www: http://www.djpig.de/
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
> 

Message #284 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>

To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>

Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org, djpig@debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:41:23 +0100

Hi Matthew,

On Thursday, 24 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> > available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> > upgrades.
> > To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> > hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.
> 
> It's all hppa machines, not just hppa64.

IIRC we did some upgrade tests on hppa(32) at the BSP in Frankfurt in
November last year and had no problems with that, but i might be wrong.

Frank, could you please confirm this, as i recall you and Uli did these
tests....

Greetings
Martin

Message #289 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Robin Harmsen" <Robin@RHarmsen.nl>

To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>, <debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>

Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:50:56 +0100

I installed a minimal basic "stable" installation of Debian (no packages 
selected with tasksel or dselect)
when doing the upgade as stated on 
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/ via the dpkg method.

I first needed to install zlib1g, ash and stat.
maby it is better to mention that those need to be installed prior.

and there is no mentioning of what to change in silo.conf
cause you need to specify the initrd somehow.
I added:
initrd=1/initrd.img
is this correct?

afther rebooting I get the following error(s):

modprobe: Noting to load ???
Specify at least a module or a wildcard like \*
....
....
pivot_root: No such file or directory
/sbin/init: cannot open dev/console: no such file
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill init!



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Lichtenheld" <djpig@debian.org>
To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>; <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>; 
<debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>
Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades


> Hi all.
>
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> upgrades.
> To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.
>
> Because of the pain to maintain a kernel backport over the lifetime
> of sarge we have decided to only offer backports of the needed tools
> (modutils, module-init-tools and initrd-tools) to use stock sarge
> kernels on woody.
>
> It is planned to upload these files together with some documentation
> into a upgrade-kernel (or whatever else name the ftpmasters will prefer)
> directory in the archive.
>
> I've prepared the necessary backports and some rudimentary documentation
> and put it online at
> http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/
>
> We now need people that
> - test the backports
> - read/comment on/improve the documentation
>
> Gruesse,
> -- 
> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
> www: http://www.djpig.de/
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
> 

Message #294 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Robin Harmsen" <Robin@RHarmsen.nl>

To: "Frank Lichtenheld" <djpig@debian.org>, <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>, <debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>

Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:05:54 +0100

I installed a minimal basic "stable" installation of Debian (no packages 
selected with tasksel or dselect)
when doing the upgade as stated on 
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/ via the dpkg method.

I first needed to install zlib1g, ash and stat.
maby it is better to mention that those need to be installed prior.

and there is no mentioning of what to change in silo.conf
cause you need to specify the initrd somehow.
I added:
initrd=1/initrd.img
is this correct?

afther rebooting I get the following error(s):

modprobe: Noting to load ???
Specify at least a module or a wildcard like \*
....
....
pivot_root: No such file or directory
/sbin/init: cannot open dev/console: no such file
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill init!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Lichtenheld" <djpig@debian.org>
To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>; <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>; 
<debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>
Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:31 PM
Subject: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades


> Hi all.
>
> As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> upgrades.
> To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.
>
> Because of the pain to maintain a kernel backport over the lifetime
> of sarge we have decided to only offer backports of the needed tools
> (modutils, module-init-tools and initrd-tools) to use stock sarge
> kernels on woody.
>
> It is planned to upload these files together with some documentation
> into a upgrade-kernel (or whatever else name the ftpmasters will prefer)
> directory in the archive.
>
> I've prepared the necessary backports and some rudimentary documentation
> and put it online at
> http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/
>
> We now need people that
> - test the backports
> - read/comment on/improve the documentation
>
> Gruesse,
> -- 
> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
> www: http://www.djpig.de/
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
> 

Message #299 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:08:25 -0800

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:54:38PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> > available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> > upgrades.
> > To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> > hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.

> It's all hppa machines, not just hppa64.

Then why does the libc6 preinst say that the minimum kernel is 2.4.17 for
parisc, and 2.4.19 for parisc64?  If this is an error, it will need to be
reconciled before release.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

Message #304 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org

Cc: 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:44:50 -0800

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:57:35PM +0100, Robin Harmsen wrote:

> at this moment I am testing the Debian Installer on a SS5 (sun4m I thougt)
> cause I wanted a newer kernel then 2.2.20. but it isn't working very well

> I am willing to test this upgrade-kernel to get a beter kernel and be able 
> to do a woody->sarge upgrade
> I think I will start with it right afther I finished my test with the 
> debian installer and filled in a report

> I hope I will be able to help :)

To the best of our knowledge, the SS5 is not one of the systems affected by
this upgrade issue; only systems using the Cypress chips are known to be
affected.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

Message #309 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Robin Harmsen" <Robin@RHarmsen.nl>

To: "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@debian.org>, <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, <debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>

Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:27:23 +0100

Actualy the SS5 (at least the one I have got here) does have the problem
for libc6 version .... I need a kernel above 2.4.21, and for that kernel I 
need that libc6 version.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@debian.org>
To: <debian-release@lists.debian.org>; <debian-sparc@lists.debian.org>
Cc: <241497@bugs.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge 
upgrades

Message #314 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:19:53 -0500

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:08:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:54:38PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > > (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> > > available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> > > upgrades.
> > > To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> > > hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.
> 
> > It's all hppa machines, not just hppa64.
> 
> Then why does the libc6 preinst say that the minimum kernel is 2.4.17 for
> parisc, and 2.4.19 for parisc64?  If this is an error, it will need to be
> reconciled before release.

It is not an error. I submitted the patch. Userspace requires a 32-bit
kernel of atleast 2.4.17, and a 64-bit kernel of atleast 2.4.19. The
64-bit code has some orthogonal issues that took time to fix.

Both could be made to require 2.4.19, and infact the upstream glibc
patch set the requirement to 2.4.19.

c.

Message #319 received at 241497@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca>

Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 241497@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RFC and status report: Kernel upgrades for woody->sarge upgrades

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800

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

Hi Carlos,

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:19:53PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:08:25PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:54:38PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 02:31:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > > As many of you may know on some machines users will need to install
> > > > a current kernel before they will be able to upgrade woody to sarge
> > > > (or better: glibc of woody to glibc of sarge). I've tried to use the
> > > > available information to provide the needed files for these kernel
> > > > upgrades.
> > > > To my knowledge the affected machines/architecures are currently
> > > > hppa64, sparc sun4m (only some of them) and 80386.

> > > It's all hppa machines, not just hppa64.

> > Then why does the libc6 preinst say that the minimum kernel is 2.4.17 for
> > parisc, and 2.4.19 for parisc64?  If this is an error, it will need to be
> > reconciled before release.

> It is not an error. I submitted the patch. Userspace requires a 32-bit
> kernel of atleast 2.4.17, and a 64-bit kernel of atleast 2.4.19. The
> 64-bit code has some orthogonal issues that took time to fix.

> Both could be made to require 2.4.19, and infact the upstream glibc
> patch set the requirement to 2.4.19.

Well, requiring 2.4.19 for 32-bit would imply a need for additional upgrade
testing; so if it's not actually needed, I think we're best off leaving
glibc's preinst the way it is.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

Message #330 received at 241497-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: 241497-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: CLosing

Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:57:45 +0200

The backports are in place in the archive and the upgrade is documented
in the release notes. So I think we can finally close this bug.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.