Re: b-f 3.0.16 preparing

2001-10-22 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include Adam Di Carlo wrote on Sun Oct 21, 2001 um 09:49:23PM: > > > > of few fixes. IMHO we won't need new pcmcia-modules-*, the old ones > > > > should be still useable. "modconf" does not report unresolved > > > > dependencies, so I guess the modules should work as well. > > > > > > The pa

Re: b-f 3.0.16 preparing

2001-10-21 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include Herbert Xu wrote on Sun Oct 21, 2001 um 08:29:39AM: > > of few fixes. IMHO we won't need new pcmcia-modules-*, the old ones > > should be still useable. "modconf" does not report unresolved > > dependencies, so I guess the modules should work as well. > > The package dependency in pcm

Re: b-f 3.0.16 preparing

2001-10-20 Thread Herbert Xu
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ehm, really? I thought the binary compatibility would not break because > of few fixes. IMHO we won't need new pcmcia-modules-*, the old ones > should be still useable. "modconf" does not report unresolved > dependencies, so I guess the modules should w

Re: b-f 3.0.16 preparing

2001-10-20 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include Adam Di Carlo wrote on Sat Oct 20, 2001 um 01:11:24PM: > > do an NMU. People building BFs for non-i386 should also make sure that > > they are using the fixed kernel images. > > Well, unfortunately, we'll need new pcmcia-modules-* packages as well. Ehm, really? I thought the binary co

Re: b-f 3.0.16 preparing

2001-10-20 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include Adam Di Carlo wrote on Sat Oct 20, 2001 um 03:55:58AM: > debootstrap with better progress monitoring (yet to be NMU'd until I > test it more). > > So if you have some stuff that needs to get in, get it in. I'll > probably release 3.0.16 sometime over the weekend. Please note the curr