Quoting Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> [Christian Perrier]
> > As discover 1 currently has a FTBFS bug (221302, opened yesterday when
> > I tried to build a NMU for it), this is definitely likely.. :-)
>
> Oh. Nto good. NMU required imidiately, I suspect. :)
Sure. But I'm perfectly
[Christian Perrier]
> As discover 1 currently has a FTBFS bug (221302, opened yesterday when
> I tried to build a NMU for it), this is definitely likely.. :-)
Oh. Nto good. NMU required imidiately, I suspect. :)
> But, I guess this switch to discover 2 will occur after sarge
> release ?
I want
Quoting Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This sounds very good. When will this result in replies regarding the
> patches we have been working on in the d-i team to get it to work with
> d-i. As far as I know, we are now waiting for Progeny to get back to
> us with comments on the patch
* Thorsten Sauter
| Coudn't we use the RedHat discovering tool? I thing it's better under
| development and support more hardware (RedHat needs to extend the
| supported haradware everytime)
IIRC, kudzu's library is a lot larger than discover, so we'd need a
second floppy for i386, which would r
Is it only me being concerned about the state of discover? Is there
anything more I can do to help?
Coudn't we use the RedHat discovering tool? I thing it's better under
development and support more hardware (RedHat needs to extend the
supported haradware everytime)
I took the time to see all thos
mån 2003-03-24 klockan 09.37 skrev Thorsten Sauter:
> > Is it only me being concerned about the state of discover? Is there
> > anything more I can do to help?
> Coudn't we use the RedHat discovering tool? I thing it's better under
> development and support more hardware (RedHat needs to extend th
mån 2003-03-24 klockan 02.45 skrev Ian Murdock:
> Hi,
>
> We've been busy at Progeny with other things recently, but I can assure
> you that Discover remains a key technology and will be actively
> maintained (see http://www.progeny.com/products/enablingtech.html).
> Discover 2 is a substantial re
Hello,
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 04:02:19PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> When checking the list of bugs filed against discover in BTS, I start
> to wonder if it is wise to base the d-i HW detection on a package that
> seem to lack active maintainers. Some of the bugs are more than a
> year
Hi,
We've been busy at Progeny with other things recently, but I can assure
you that Discover remains a key technology and will be actively
maintained (see http://www.progeny.com/products/enablingtech.html).
Discover 2 is a substantial reworking of Discover 1; we have packaged it
for Platform Serv
> "pr" == Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pr> I suspect a lot of this is due to the release of discover2,
pr> but we are still waiting for that one.
pr> Is it only me being concerned about the state of discover? Is
pr> there anything more I can do to help?
I
When checking the list of bugs filed against discover in BTS, I start
to wonder if it is wise to base the d-i HW detection on a package that
seem to lack active maintainers. Some of the bugs are more than a
year old. Several bugs have been fixed in NMU without being included
in a new maintainer
11 matches
Mail list logo
