What kind of updates should be provided for the kfreebsd-8 that
shipped with squeeze?
Should it stay with 8.1 or should we update it to 8.2?
In squeeze, we should stay with 8.1.
The kfreebsd-kernel-headers package is generated from 8.1 sources.
Unfortunately, even API is changed between them,
s
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> reassign 601803 freebsd-net-tools
> notfound 601803 8.2+ds1-2
> notfound 601803 8.2+ds2-2
> thanks
>
> 2011/7/7 Zac Slade :
>> root@pleco:~# ifconfig wlan0 create wlandev ath0
>> ifconfig: SIOCIFCREATE2: Bad address
>
> Sorry for the confusion
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Robert Millan wrote:
What kind of updates should be provided for the kfreebsd-8 that
shipped with squeeze?
Should it stay with 8.1 or should we update it to 8.2?
If we update it to 8.2, will this cause trouble with 8.1 userland?
There are strong expectations in the FreeB
In case this helps narrowing down the problem, I've verified that this
regression wasn't introduced by upgrading any of the libraries
gnome-terminal depends on. In particular, it isn't introduced when
upgrading libc or libglib from sid. Bug only appears when upgrading
gnome-terminal itself.
--
What kind of updates should be provided for the kfreebsd-8 that
shipped with squeeze?
Should it stay with 8.1 or should we update it to 8.2?
If we update it to 8.2, will this cause trouble with 8.1 userland?
Dragging 8.2 userland with it would be a bad idea IMHO. What do you
think?
If we stay w
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Due to an unfortunate oversight, the version of ifconfig that shipped with
squeeze was shipped with its wireless support completely disabled (see bug
#601803).
I'm proposing this backport of the
Package: clisp
Version: 2.49-7
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd
I updated this patch from Petr Salinger to support kfreebsd-amd64 in clisp.
I've verified that it builds and passes testsuite succesfully.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: whe
Accepted:
kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.debian.tar.gz
to main/k/kfreebsd-8/kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.debian.tar.gz
kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.dsc
to main/k/kfreebsd-8/kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.dsc
kfreebsd-headers-8-amd64_8.2-6_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
to main/k/kfreebsd-8/kfreebsd-headers-8-amd64_8.2-6_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
kfreebsd-head
Accepted:
libnvpair-dev_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
to main/z/zfsutils/libnvpair-dev_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libnvpair0-udeb_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.udeb
to main/z/zfsutils/libnvpair0-udeb_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.udeb
libnvpair0_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
to main/z/zfsutils/libnvpair0_8.2-2_kfreebsd
kfreebsd-8_8.2-6_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.dsc
kfreebsd-8_8.2-6.debian.tar.gz
kfreebsd-source-8.2_8.2-6_all.deb
kfreebsd-headers-8.2-1_8.2-6_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
kfreebsd-image-8.2-1-amd64_8.2-6_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
kfre
zfsutils_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
zfsutils_8.2-2.dsc
zfsutils_8.2-2.debian.tar.gz
libuutil0_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libuutil-dev_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libuutil0-udeb_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd64.udeb
libnvpair0_8.2-2_kfreebsd-amd6
Not sure, but it looks like somebody did a manual upload in the past. Is this a
buildd issue, or a real issue?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1980d6.8
12 matches
Mail list logo
