On 2018-02-26 at 14:55, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 12:07 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>> If the automatic DKMS rebuild is expected to be able to produce
>> modules which can work with the running kernel, then clearly the
>> current behavior is buggy in so
Or in other words: the unexpected behavior here is on the part of DKMS,
in removing working modules when the ones which will be put in as their
replacements do not work, not on the part of the kernel headers (et
cetera) themselves.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the
lt in functionality loss until a reboot can be carried
out?
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signatur
such a fallback exists, without preventing root from
manually overriding it.
If the stated goal is to avoid having e.g. /boot fill up with cruft
short of manual intervention, then at a glance, the mechanism which
these files provide does not seem to interfere with that goal.
--
The Wanderer
ecord: I am assuming that other libcs will not necessarily
provide the same structure in the same place, because otherwise I cannot
see how your comment about glibc not being the only one provided by
Debian is at all relevant to the issue at hand.)
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I
the maintainer directly, except that there
does not seem to be any such person...
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
and am
becoming decidedly uncomfortable with the situation.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
7 matches
Mail list logo
