On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:54:33PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Okay, 0.53 is in testing now (maybe a day or two ago). But again, with
> the new initramfs-tools unpacked (but not configured):
>
> Setting up udev (0.085-1) ...
> Kernel version too old. initramfs-tools requires at least 2.6
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 00:47 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > The new upgrade procedure fails on alpha, regardless of the kernel
> > workaround, there's still a udev - initramfs-tools dependency loop which
> > interrupts the udev postinst, and the
Package: initramfs-tools
Severity: wishlist
Version: 0.53
Tags: patch
Hi,
I noticed initramfs-tools hadn't sata_mv [Marvell SATA controller]
in hooks, so initramfs-tools couldn't make correct initrd to support
this driver.
Although sata_mv is under development, it works at least.
Thanks,
--
Ke
By the way as an addendum to my previous post. I has the same problem
on this machine with a number of (but not all) kernels both 64 and 32
bit.
I can't tell you if the BIOS upgrade fixed the problem on all kernels,
but I suspect so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:35:55PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe it would be best for all involved if we maintained a list of such
> > cases, and had proper workaround in either udev or a separate package, and
> > then, actively sear
I have been fighting the same problem for several months now and only
today solved the problem.
My machine is an emachines model T6212 and has a ATI graphics card as
well SIS network card. I mention this because on a number of posts in
the net concerning this issue these two pieces of hardware (a
On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe it would be best for all involved if we maintained a list of such
> cases, and had proper workaround in either udev or a separate package, and
> then, actively search to get those cases fixed in the kernel, either by doing
> the develop
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, on one hand you say you have no plan to oppose workarounds, but on the
> > other hand you clearly oppose such workarounds ?
> No, I oppose attempts to require me to maintain the
Your message dated Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:47:49 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#355235: fixed in initramfs-tools 0.53b
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Accepted:
initramfs-tools_0.53b.dsc
to pool/main/i/initramfs-tools/initramfs-tools_0.53b.dsc
initramfs-tools_0.53b.tar.gz
to pool/main/i/initramfs-tools/initramfs-tools_0.53b.tar.gz
initramfs-tools_0.53b_all.deb
to pool/main/i/initramfs-tools/initramfs-tools_0.53b_all.deb
Announcing to debia
initramfs-tools_0.53b_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
initramfs-tools_0.53b.dsc
initramfs-tools_0.53b.tar.gz
initramfs-tools_0.53b_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, i remember some issues with the firewire module in the sarge timeframe,
> and how you actively discouraged a workaround for this.
It's hard to be specific since I do not remember the details either, but
IIRC I suggested a solution to be im
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 04:25:01PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > By saying that these obsolete drivers should be supported anyway you are
> > > basically requesting other people to spend their time maintaining
> > > workarounds in their own
On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By saying that these obsolete drivers should be supported anyway you are
> > basically requesting other people to spend their time maintaining
> > workarounds in their own packages.
> Well, we have done this for sarge in a much more extensive w
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:19:04AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I think that this is not a position acceptable in debian right now, who aims
> >to support many less-supported-arches/subarches, who still struggle to get
> >their main patches into mainline. So i believe
Hi,
I would like to compile auditd 1.4[1] on an unstable box.
I follow README-install and at the end of configure everything looks
right. However make fails instantly (relevant lines only):
--cut --
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I. -I.. -fPIC -DPIC -D_GNU_SOURCE -g -O2 -MT
libaudit.lo -MD -M
16 matches
Mail list logo
