[10:13] good morning [10:14] hey, is there a way to remove certain arches from debian/config/* ? updateconfigs fails because I removed some dir's for arches i don't want to build for [10:17] krgn: Wouldn't it make more sense to only build for the arches you want to build for? [10:18] krgn: if all you need is a single flavour, just using the binary- target [10:18] Daviey: true, but when using updateconfigs target i have to go through tons of configs which I am too lazy to do ;) [10:18] fakeroot debian/rules binary->flavour>, that is [10:18] ^^ Surely you can do that :) [10:19] I guess I can just switch myself off for a little while [11:10] hey, is there a way to get sources for the mainline kernel anywhere? [11:12] git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git [11:12] ? [11:12] Kano: ok ok, but I also need the ubuntu-specific stuff [11:13] well you can use a ubuntu kernel then git pull from that [11:13] that will update it [11:13] you mean, git checkout origin/v2.6.29 or something [11:13] ? [11:14] git clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-karmic.git [11:14] cd ubuntu-karmic. [11:15] git pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git master [11:15] for example [11:16] Kano: great, I'll try this. thanks [11:17] i am waiting for next official sync currently but you can do that to update that whenever you want [11:30] hmm weird, I end up without debian/rules etc... [11:48] hey, are there deb source files for the mainline kernel builds? [11:49] krgn: I pointed those out to you yesterday [11:49] amitk: this page: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/ ? [11:49] krgn: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds?action=show&redirect=KernelMainlineBuilds [11:50] go to the archive link on this page [11:50] krgn: your link should work too [11:51] amitk: ah but these don't have source debs so I can see how the packaging is done [11:51] krgn: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.31-rc4/linux-source-2.6.31_2.6.31-020631rc4_all.deb <-- this doesnt? [11:51] apw: ^^^ [11:52] yeah i thought we had source debs in the mainline builds? [11:53] amitk: ah yes, but then I need to use specific version 2.6.29.6 as I patch with rt patch and aufs, and the linux-source deb doesn't contain a lot of the files in debian/* [11:53] its quite convoluted :) [11:53] krgn? [11:53] oh hrm source .debs ... [11:53] are we copying the wrong one? [11:54] apw: you mean wrong deb? I think that .31 would be ok, but I can't use that yet since aufs doesn't have a compat patch for rt [11:55] well the way they are made is we simply checkout the mainline version, then checkout the debian directory from the tip of the nearest release and run updateconfigs [11:55] then build, there is no rocket science involved [11:57] apw: ah yes, thats exactly what I did. then I ran into build failure that only happens with the debian/rules binary-arch but not when I just put a config and run make [11:57] which is strange to me, since it doen't seem to patch anything [11:58] what was the build failure as we don't mod the source [11:59] it fails to build kernel/power/snapshot.c because apparently there is a parse error, but this doesn't happen when I do the build manually [12:01] http://pastebin.ca/1529303 [12:07] apw: what was the rune to quickly create a branch? 'git checkout -b foo' takes a while [12:07] if you don't need to be on it [12:08] then you can make a branch directly with git branch [12:09] aaaaaaaah, I do need to be on it. [12:16] if you need to be on it i don't know of a quicker way === testz3urfhdj is now known as ukev === ScottK2 is now known as ScottK [13:44] hi... did you heared of the linux kernel root exploit? [13:44] I've just tested it, jaunty full patched is vulnerable.. [13:47] no one here? [13:47] its important [13:48] ukev: our -security teams are aware of it and kernel updates are being prepared [13:49] ok great :).... [13:49] thanks for all the work! [13:49] ukev: you could join #ubuntu-security to track status [13:49] ok thanks for that hint [13:58] * krgn wonders... are any .h / .c files by default in debian/ dir? [13:58] this build error could be related to mismatching source/header files [13:59] for example, there are 3 different files called power.h in debian/ while this also exists in kernel/power/ [15:22] sorry for all teh confusing and ... thanks for the help! [15:58] usb oops and apport == fail (atleast in my case) [15:59] lsusb was stuck in a loop and hence apport for stuck [15:59] s/for/was [17:23] is this a common mistake? [17:23] EE: Previous or current ABI file missing! [17:24] I built binary-generic target, and so for this kernel version only one abi exists [18:08] can I ask a kernel compilation question here or is this only for development discussion? [18:16] mostly what I am wondering is: if I am currently running 2.6.28-14-generic (#47) and I apt-get linux source I end up with 2-6-28-9. If I apply Linus' patch for the null pointer exploit to this tree and then make and install the deb for the custom kernel what sort of issues will I have in relation to the restricted-modules. Will I need to recompile those for the new custom kernel? [18:17] Or... is the patch in the works for a new kernel from the offical repos and I shouldn't bother? [18:21] jnfuller, the latter [18:28] thanks, rtg, but if I do end up having to apply this kernel (i.e. boss demands it on production systems) I'd have to apply the kernel, reboot and then compile the restricted-modules against the custom kernel in order for the proprietary stuff to work, right? [18:30] jnfuller, any time you change the ABI, then you'll have to recompile all external, 3rd party modules. [18:30] ok that's what I thought. [18:30] thanks again [18:33] hey, how do I bump the abi? do I do this in the changelog?