Can you verify the MAKEDEV constructs the appropriate devices exactly as
the mknod from the postinst does? This was the reason I didn't use
MAKEDEV in the first instance, albeit some time ago.
On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 09:41 +0100, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> tags 338743 + patch
> thanks
>
> * Marco d'I
severity 33677 important
thanks
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:35 +0100, Laurent CARON wrote:
> Package: bluez-utils
> Version: 2.19-1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
>
> After having upgraded to new bluez-utils i'm unable to connect my phone
> (Ericsson T630) anymore.
>
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 18:06 -0400, William Ballard wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=323365
>
> Why is this grave security bugfix not in Sarge security updates, more
> than a month later? I know there's a "good reason," but in my few years
> of using Debian I have always
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:47 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Edd,
>
> > This has been fixed in upstream's CVS and will be in the next release.
>
> That was five months ago, and gcc-4.0 is now the default compiler in etch.
> When could we expect this new upstream release to be uploaded to Debian?
Package: dbus-1-dev
Version: 0.23.2-2
Severity: grave
Version 0.23.2 removes a function from the API without changing the
SONAME of the library.
In particular, my package bluez-utils is caused not to build from source
by this change.
bluez-utils-2.15/hcid/dbus.c:75: undefined reference to
`dbus_
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 19:20 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hmm, it is possible to only move one binary package to contrib and there
> are examples for this in the archive. I don't know if this is
> encouraged, though.
Well, I'll give it a try then. I've prepared a new package whose
Section is
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 17:38 +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> IMO the situation for this package is different from the kernel's.
>
> In the case of the kernel, it functions completely ok without any of
> the non-free firmwares; those only provide additional functionality.
>
> Bluez-bcm203x'
Josh, thanks for filing this. It is as you say good to have it out
there.
My question is this: why should this firmware loader be any different
than the kernel? It is required only under kernel 2.4, and performs the
same function as the bcm203x module in kernel 2.6.
I can see no reason for not
8 matches
Mail list logo
