What's our timeline for 2.2.16?
I am rather concerned about the modprobe reports posted to the list earlier.
From: "Matt Kraai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.2.16 i386 build available for testing
[ the gist of it is this message, on star
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> In other words, there would be packages in main which can never be
> installed on a system. I don't see how such packages need to be in
> the regular distribution, burned on the CDs, mirrored worldwide etc.
> They are USELESS execpt if you're building the installat
A recent thread on debian-boot concerns wether busybox should be allowed
into woody as a seperate package.
Busybox is a vital component of the installer but would NOT be useable
or installable post install.
The reason for rejection
On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho w
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 01:02:54PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Why does it *have* to be a .deb?
>
> Quite possibly because you can't upload source only and all uploads have
> to include a .deb? Atleast last I checked that was the case.
Perhaps I should rephrase: why does it need to be part of
> > The only other alternative is to provide a source .deb instead
> > of a binary package.
>
> Why does it *have* to be a .deb?
Quite possibly because you can't upload source only and all uploads have
to include a .deb? Atleast last I checked that was the case.
--
---===-=-==
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:55:12PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> No one is against discussing it. It was already discussed with the people
> that matter.
Who are the people that matter?
> If it can't be installed, and it is documented as such in the
> package description, then I see nothing of how
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:58:39PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:40:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I don't think he undertstands that this "package" was previously an
> > integral part of the boot-floppies package and has since been split out
> > for easier
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:40:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I don't think he undertstands that this "package" was previously an
> integral part of the boot-floppies package and has since been split out
> for easier maintainence.
"Easy maintenance" is not a valid reason to include noninstallabl
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:24:53AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> This package is _supposed_ to violate policy. It is to be used exclusivly by
> the debian-installer. There is no way you could ever even install it onto your
> workstation, since it conflicts with dpkg.
Then why is it going into
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:24:53AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > This package violates policy in several ways:
> > - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include
> > a copyright file, a changelog file or
On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> This package violates policy in several ways:
> - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include
> a copyright file, a changelog file or - indeed - a
> /usr/[share/]doc/ directory!
>
> - second of all
Niccolo,
As the de facto package maintainer I will be the first to admit that the
status of the module messages is totally ridiculous. As you pointed out
there are many inaccuracies and omissions.
Some time late last year we looked into revamping the modconf system
completely, however, because o
> With the images at the above location (dated Jun 29 18:30) the following
> message appears numerous times before dbootstrap begins:
>
> modprobe: modprobe: Can't open dependencies file /lib/modules/2.2.17/modules.dep (No
>such file or directory)
>
> followed by
>
> kmod: runaway modprobe lo
Package: modconf
Version: 0.2.26.14
Subject: No
I wondered a lot installing potato when I discovered that many
modules are marked with "(No description available)" by modconf.
In many cases no help is given about parameters, in other totally
wrong help is given (noticeably parameters for lp.o).
T
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> > - Some modules dependancies are not resolved automatically.
> > Noticeably lp is not loaded if I don't load parport_pc
> > manually.
>
> That probably means depmod wasn't running properly. Can you test with
> the the images at http://www.debian.org/~joeyh/bf ?
The
15 matches
Mail list logo
