On 04/06/07 at 09:21 +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 03/06/07 at 01:38 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:26:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >>> On 02/06/07 at 23:17 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>>> Hi Lucas, > >>>> This was a bug in linux-libc-dev that has since been fixed. > >>> Actually, the bug in linux-libc-dev was #423462, but it was about > >>> LINUX_VERSION_CODE, not UTS_RELEASE. The full content of > >>> /usr/include/linux/version.h in linux-libc-dev is: > >>> #define LINUX_VERSION_CODE 132629 > >>> #define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c)) > >>> So maybe UTS_RELEASE should be added to that file, and those bugs should > >>> be reassigned to linux-libc-dev. I've stopped filing bugs about those > >>> issues in the meantime. > > > > Actually: > > <waldi> UTS_RELEASE is not defined in version.h any longer. > > this is not a bug in the kernel > > <waldi> linux/utsrelease.h is the correct header now > > OK, so are we now saying that this *is* an am-utils bug after all I think so. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
