On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:32:02PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> How should I know? I have even removed all the kernel equivalents and
> kept only custom versions of ieee8* and ipw22* modules, did rmmod and
> "depmod -a", and still got:
Okay, so you build ipw2200 against the symbol versions of the
#include
* Bastian Blank [Sat, Nov 05 2005, 12:22:46PM]:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:33:53AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > please consider not using CONFIG_MODVERSIONS in future. Reason: it makes
> > installation of alternative modules with the same names hard till
> > unpossible. Current exampl
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:33:53AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> please consider not using CONFIG_MODVERSIONS in future. Reason: it makes
> installation of alternative modules with the same names hard till
> unpossible. Current example: ipw2200, which is contained in 2.6.14 in a
> very old version.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:33:53AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-686
> Version: 2.6.14-2
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> please consider not using CONFIG_MODVERSIONS in future. Reason: it makes
> installation of alternative modules with the same names hard till
> un
Package: linux-image-2.6.14-1-686
Version: 2.6.14-2
Severity: normal
Hello,
please consider not using CONFIG_MODVERSIONS in future. Reason: it makes
installation of alternative modules with the same names hard till
unpossible. Current example: ipw2200, which is contained in 2.6.14 in a
very old v
5 matches
Mail list logo
