On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > Of course the reason matters, but the bug simply was about a binary > > package not being available. > > no, read again. #441146 is about including some definition files into > linux-modules-extra-2.6, not more, not less. as this was done, the bug > is fixed.
Maybe we should agree upon disagreeing on this one. I try to view this from the user's point of view and the only way to help the user is to provide a package. But then Torsten might have meant the definition files only. > > IMO the only way to fix this is to deliver > > the package. > > are you really not getting it? the /new/ problem is a problem in > virtualbox-ose-source. it has absolutely nothing to do with > linux-modules-extra-2.6. it can not be fixed in linux-modulex-extra-2.6. > that is why it is not a bug in linux-modules-extra-2.6. You did read my message, didn't you? > > Fine with me. I don't mind having this bug reassigned. To be honest in > > my opinion we should have two open bugs, one against > > virtualbox-ose-source and one against linux-modules-extra-2.6 with the > > latter one being blocked by the former. I still disagree with you guys > > closing the bug though, though. > > no. the fact that virtualbox-ose-source does not comply with > linux-modulex-extra-2.6 is a bug in virtualbox-ose-source, not in > linux-modules-extra-2.6. No argument here. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go VfL Borussia! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
