On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
> 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
> speakup to be compiled as a module, would it be ok to include speakup in
> the standard images, as a module which would be auto-loaded through a
> kernel parameter?

IMO that should not be a problem. Depending on the size of the size of the
module we may not be able to add it to floppy images for example, but CD
images and possibly netboot should not be a problem.

The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel image
packages of course.

Cheers,
FJP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH4CCLgm/Kwh6ICoQRAvmDAJsEramhTX8M/06PQL6YqBrRlhSwNQCdHN7p
KrNAoQids2Dd5VGige/MIKA=
=lpqw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

(No need to CC me, please just mail the debian-boot list.)

On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> > image packages of course.
>
> Ah, can't it be a separate package?
> (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)

You'll need to discuss that with the kernel team. From an installer PoV life
would be slightly easier if it were included in the regular kernel images.
And if it is part of the upstream kernel source, I personally see no reason
why it should not be.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH4Cmlgm/Kwh6ICoQRAnRLAJ40/LMLbnte7+3L7fU4gDz118KD1wCeNgrv
Y5qEVJ1+WOPumjv75+qGy64=
=rOr9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frans Pop, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 21:05:30 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
> > 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
> > speakup to be compiled as a module, would it be ok to include speakup in
> > the standard images, as a module which would be auto-loaded through a
> > kernel parameter?
>
> IMO that should not be a problem. Depending on the size of the size of the
> module we may not be able to add it to floppy images for example, but CD
> images and possibly netboot should not be a problem.

It is 80KB for the core + ~8KB per driver (there are 15), so about 200KB.

Not having it on a floppy image may not so much be a problem if it is on
the regular USB/CD images.

> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel image
> packages of course.

Ah, can't it be a separate package?
(speakup can now be compiled fully independently)

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Samuel Thibault writes:

> Frans Pop, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 21:05:30 +0100, a écrit :
>> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > I was wondering: since one of the goals of d-i for Lenny is to have a
>> > 2.6.24 kernel, and that it happens that that kernel has enough hooks for
>> > speakup to be compiled as a module, would it be ok to include speakup in
>> > the standard images, as a module which would be auto-loaded through a
>> > kernel parameter?

[...]

>> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel image
>> packages of course.
>
> Ah, can't it be a separate package?

Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6 where all the extra modules belong?
Seems logical to work speakup into the linux-modules-extra-2.6 source
package and have it produce binary packages named speakup-modules-2.6* like
the other module packages in there.

> (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)

linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.

--
CYa,
â¡�â*�â*—â*Šâ*• | Debian Developer
.''`. | Get my public key via finger mlang@db.debian.org
: :' : | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
`. `'
`-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH6Sg83/wCKmsRPkQRAp1gAJ9XRnZZH4q/XftlHUuXwe0pOvIFJQCfREBE
eoDpvV5qXKamqWpm/0IePnU=
=38PY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello,

Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.

Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Mario Lang wrote:
> >> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> >> image packages of course.
> >
> > Ah, can't it be a separate package?
>
> Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6 where all the extra modules belong?
> Seems logical to work speakup into the linux-modules-extra-2.6 source
> package and have it produce binary packages named speakup-modules-2.6*
> like the other module packages in there.
>
> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now
> that it does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.

No, linux-modules-* is for out-of-tree modules, NOT for modules that are
included in the upstream kernel source.

Cheers,
FJP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH6TqDgm/Kwh6ICoQRAuyMAKCoUsZ4CW2hvE+QUmXkM4LhgCIEXQCfdE2r
fBa0q/Rt8LwlLHpg8YfiSPo=
=uP45
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Samuel Thibault writes:

> Hello,
>
> Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault writes:
>> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>>
>> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
>> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
>
> Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..

It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
or later. That would allow the module to be build from
linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.

--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."

Samuel Thibault writes:

> Hello,
>
> Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault writes:
>> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
>>
>> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
>> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
>
> Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..

It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
or later. That would allow the module to be build from
linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.

--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."

Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:46:34 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Mario Lang wrote:
> > >> The module will first need to be included in the regular Debian kernel
> > >> image packages of course.
> > >
> > > Ah, can't it be a separate package?
> >
> > Isn't linux-modules-extra-2.6 where all the extra modules belong?
> > Seems logical to work speakup into the linux-modules-extra-2.6 source
> > package and have it produce binary packages named speakup-modules-2.6*
> > like the other module packages in there.
> >
> > > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> >
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now
> > that it does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
>
> No, linux-modules-* is for out-of-tree modules, NOT for modules that are
> included in the upstream kernel source.

Err, OK, and?

The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
it in d-i.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

(Please don't CC me on list mail.)

On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
> it in d-i.

Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
module? It just does not make any sense to me.

Anyway, this is not a D-I decision. You should discuss it with the kernel
team.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH6USlgm/Kwh6ICoQRAt1VAJ4/CcgB8FjbEVgtMj7iu2zJRXtLpACfdj3s
oaT5yR4YEPOLPAjTtUF8qnQ=
=+xKU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> >> Samuel Thibault writes:
> >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> >>
> >> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> >> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
> >
> > Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> > GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> > backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..
>
> It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
> it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
> or later. That would allow the module to be build from
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.

ok thanks for informing us.

afair we had a discussion about speakup and it would point to
security troubles of that patch.
but i don't remember the cicurmstances why it got droped
when going from 2.4 to 2.6?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> >> Samuel Thibault writes:
> >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> >>
> >> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> >> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
> >
> > Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> > GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> > backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..
>
> It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
> it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
> or later. That would allow the module to be build from
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.

ok thanks for informing us.

afair we had a discussion about speakup and it would point to
security troubles of that patch.
but i don't remember the cicurmstances why it got droped
when going from 2.4 to 2.6?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Frans Pop writes:

> (Please don't CC me on list mail.)
>
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
>> it in d-i.
>
> Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
> module? It just does not make any sense to me.
>
> Anyway, this is not a D-I decision. You should discuss it with the kernel
> team.

speakup isn't in-tree. It was include as a patchset previously and now
has the opportunity to be build as an out-of-tree module. I think that
is what Samuel means.

So this does fits for the l-m-e-2.6.

--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:29:56 +0100, a écrit :
> (Please don't CC me on list mail.)

Then tell your mailer to use followup-to

> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
> > it in d-i.
>
> Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
> module?

Mmm, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "in-tree".

The idea is not to compile speakup built into the kernel, but just as a
module, and then it doesn't need to be integrated to the kernel build
system, but just be compiled separately, just like exmap, ndiswrapper,
spca5xx etc.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Frans Pop, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:29:56 +0100, a écrit :
> (Please don't CC me on list mail.)

Then tell your mailer to use followup-to

> On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > The idea is to compile the speakup module out-of-tree but still include
> > it in d-i.
>
> Why would you want to compile a module that is in-tree as an out-of-tree
> module?

Mmm, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "in-tree".

The idea is not to compile speakup built into the kernel, but just as a
module, and then it doesn't need to be integrated to the kernel build
system, but just be compiled separately, just like exmap, ndiswrapper,
spca5xx etc.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Samuel Thibault, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:39:54 +0000, a écrit :
> Apply patches/kernel-integration-2.6.24-source.patch to the main kernel
> source to GPL-export 4 symbols,

Note: by that, I mean to pick that patch into the regular linux-2.6
kernel. That patch is already in the -mm tree actually.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Samuel Thibault, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 18:39:54 +0000, a écrit :
> Apply patches/kernel-integration-2.6.24-source.patch to the main kernel
> source to GPL-export 4 symbols,

Note: by that, I mean to pick that patch into the regular linux-2.6
kernel. That patch is already in the -mm tree actually.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hello,

maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:31:03 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault writes:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> > >> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> > >>
> > >> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> > >> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
> > >
> > > Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> > > GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> > > backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..
> >
> > It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
> > it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
> > or later. That would allow the module to be build from
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.
>
> ok thanks for informing us.
>
> afair we had a discussion about speakup and it would point to
> security troubles of that patch.
> but i don't remember the cicurmstances why it got droped
> when going from 2.4 to 2.6?

Well, things have evolved a lot since then. Speakup used to need to
patch the kernel quite heavily in order to get keyboard & screen access.
I have worked with lkml to integrate that part much more nicely with
notifiers, and it is now part of 2.6.24. The result is that the patch
that Speakup needs is now reduced to exporting the inverse_translate,
kbd_table, kd_mksound, and screen_glyph symbols, which is already the
case in the -mm tree. As a consequence, speakup can now be compiled
as a separate module which can be loaded only when necessary (blind
people).

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hello,

maximilian attems, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 19:31:03 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:06:58PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault writes:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Mario Lang, le Tue 25 Mar 2008 17:28:32 +0100, a écrit :
> > >> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > >> > (speakup can now be compiled fully independently)
> > >>
> > >> linux-modules-extra-2.6 seems like the perfect place for speakup, now that it
> > >> does not require the kernel to be patched anymore.
> > >
> > > Well, a small patch is still needed, but it just boils down to
> > > GPL-exporting 4 symbols, and that is already in the -mm tree, so
> > > backporting it to the debian kernel shouldn't be a problem..
> >
> > It would be nice if you could talk to Debian Kernel Team (just added
> > it to cc list) and see if this could be added for next 2.6.24 upload
> > or later. That would allow the module to be build from
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 and later to be added to d-i if needed.
>
> ok thanks for informing us.
>
> afair we had a discussion about speakup and it would point to
> security troubles of that patch.
> but i don't remember the cicurmstances why it got droped
> when going from 2.4 to 2.6?

Well, things have evolved a lot since then. Speakup used to need to
patch the kernel quite heavily in order to get keyboard & screen access.
I have worked with lkml to integrate that part much more nicely with
notifiers, and it is now part of 2.6.24. The result is that the patch
that Speakup needs is now reduced to exporting the inverse_translate,
kbd_table, kd_mksound, and screen_glyph symbols, which is already the
case in the -mm tree. As a consequence, speakup can now be compiled
as a separate module which can be loaded only when necessary (blind
people).

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org