From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 745B37244F for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:34:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AB132E54C for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:34:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EFB5E2E541 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:34:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 98BC743FBD for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:34:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:34:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210615112729.1099797-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210615112729.1099797-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.919 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [control.in] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH bullseye kernel 0/6] debug package and packaging/build cleanups X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:34:53 -0000 On 15.06.21 13:27, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > patches 3,4,6 can easily be backported to buster as well. >=20 > patch 5 is just an invocation of 'wrap-and-sort -f debian/control.in', > so trivially backportable or adaptable in case only some of this series= > gets applied/context has changed. >=20 > patch 2 is needed for building on a clean bullseye system which does no= t > have (EOL) python2.7 around by default. >=20 > patch 1 only makes sense to backport if we also backport the related > tools, since the ones from buster seem to be too old for our kernel > versions (see #3464). >=20 > Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler (6): > build: keep unstripped kernel and module files > d/rules: build perf with python3 > d/control: provide linux-libc-dev with version > d/control: remove references to 2.6 kernel > d/control: wrap-and-sort > d/rules: close race between 'cp' and module handling >=20 > debian/control.in | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > debian/rules | 19 +++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >=20 applied series, much thanks! No hard feelings either way on backporting..= =2E