173702 2007-04-07 21:34 0000 Please mark sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r6 stable 2007-04-26 19:12:53 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Ebuilds unspecified All Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 166557 172244 175141 173710 1 dsd@gentoo.org amd64@gentoo.org kernel@gentoo.org dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-07 21:34:54 0000 It's seen a few weeks of testing, all is quiet now, solves a few previously unsolved bugs in 2.6.19. josejx@gentoo.org 2007-04-07 23:55:19 0000 I'd also like to request vanilla-sources-2.6.20.6 stable at the same time. I know it hasn't been in the tree very long, but it should be fine since gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r5 is based on the same patchset. Thanks! vapier@gentoo.org 2007-04-08 08:38:02 0000 2.6.20 doesnt boot on arm atm ;x corsair@gentoo.org 2007-04-08 13:10:45 0000 ppc64 done gustavoz@gentoo.org 2007-04-09 12:30:23 0000 You directly stabled it for sparc by carrying over -r4 keywords. Anyway it's fine this time. mlangc@gmx.at 2007-04-09 23:16:34 0000 on x86: $ uname -srp Linux 2.6.20-gentoo-r5 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ no regressions so far... josejx@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 04:04:39 0000 Marked ppc stable. fauli@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 08:36:42 0000 Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on x86, too. I think about rc2. betelgeuse@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 09:52:50 0000 (In reply to comment #7) > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Yes Diego said we want -rc3 for 2.6.20. fauli@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 10:11:54 0000 (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Yes Diego said we want -rc3 for 2.6.20. Ok. But that still has open issues. Can anyone verify if they should hold us back? dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 12:14:00 0000 (In reply to comment #7) > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Out of interest, why? fauli@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 14:09:42 0000 (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > > x86, too. I think about rc2. > > > > Out of interest, why? Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. rc2 because it has no open bugs and succeeds on 2.6.20. rc3 is ok if the issues are non-issues. dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-10 14:32:35 0000 (In reply to comment #11) > Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. Fails in what way? fauli@gentoo.org 2007-04-12 21:41:10 0000 (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. > > Fails in what way? It is not intended to work with .20, according to Ticho, so we need a newer one. thecoop@runbox.com 2007-04-13 10:04:05 0000 2.6.20-r5 doesn't boot half the time for me (amd64). I think its still got some issues with the MCP51 chipset; see http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/748576 dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-13 12:15:08 0000 Please file a bug for your issues. wolf31o2@gentoo.org 2007-04-13 19:07:26 0000 We decided against switching to 2.6.20 simply because we are too close to the release and don't want to spend the time validating a completely new kernel. Maybe next time. dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-14 13:21:04 0000 ^ above comment was in reference to 2007.0 arch teams, now that we aren't under pressure in terms of that release, please hold off on this until -r6, which I'll release later today (hopefully) ticho@gentoo.org 2007-04-15 19:14:52 0000 (In reply to comment #17) > ^ above comment was in reference to 2007.0 > > arch teams, now that we aren't under pressure in terms of that release, please > hold off on this until -r6, which I'll release later today (hopefully) > That will of course mean that -r6 will need to be tested for a month or so. dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-15 22:11:34 0000 -r6 is out. theres no need for a months testing, the patch acceptance criteria is very strict. This is entirely an incremental release (and minimal). ticho@gentoo.org 2007-04-16 00:32:54 0000 OK, then. 2.6.20-r6 looks ok from my side. Needs alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2 or later (I have tested _rc2, _rc2-r1 and _rc3). fauli@gentoo.org 2007-04-18 14:17:20 0000 x86 stable ticho@gentoo.org 2007-04-19 01:17:26 0000 Looks like Christian forgot to stabilize newer alsa-driver. Did so now, 1.0.14_rc2 is marked stable on x86. dsd@gentoo.org 2007-04-19 13:47:20 0000 In future please file a dedicated bug (with full info, i.e. the compile error) when a stable tree package does not compile against a candidate kernel. I do track these, and would have taken care of ALSA personally if a bug had been filed earlier. beandog@gentoo.org 2007-04-26 19:12:53 0000 amd64 stable