Dear Debian kernel team, this is decision of the driver author himself.
These corrections are to be made for upstream tree, thus, i think, it's
OK to conform patch quality for you.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Forwarded message from Al Borchers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
linux-modules-extra-2.6_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
linux-modules-extra-2.6_2.6.18-7+etch1.dsc
linux-modules-extra-2.6_2.6.18-7+etch1.tar.gz
gspca-modules-2.6.18-4-486_2.6.18+01.00.04-7+etch1_i386.deb
gspca-modules-2.6-486_2.6.18-7+e
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
unionfs-modules-2.6-486_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.deb: package says section is admin,
override says misc.
unionfs-modules-2.6-686_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.deb: package says section is admin,
overrid
Mapping testing to testing-proposed-updates.
Accepted:
gspca-modules-2.6-486_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.deb
to
pool/main/l/linux-modules-extra-2.6/gspca-modules-2.6-486_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.deb
gspca-modules-2.6-686-bigmem_2.6.18-7+etch1_i386.deb
to
pool/main/l/linux-modules-extra-2.6/gspca-modules-
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:39:34AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> hey,
> I'd like to start a discussion on how we will go about doing
> updates to etch after its initial release.
[proposal skipped]
I think it's a very reasonable proposal and I'll start handling sparc
patches, intended for kernel's
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:51:58PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:37:00PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > unless there are objections, I intend to pass d-kernel write access
> > to David H?rdeman (alphix-guest). He has done a great job in the
> > early userspace support
Package: linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64
Version: 2.6.18.dfsg.1-11
Followup-For: Bug #414689
Hello
I follow up on my bug report.
I've mounted the usb disk with default options:
/dev/sde1 /mnt/usb-160gb ext3 rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,user=domi 0 0
A mv command is stuck after transferring about 36GB :
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:39:34AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > hey,
> > I'd like to start a discussion on how we will go about doing
> > updates to etch after its initial release.
> [proposal skipped]
>
> I think it's a very reaso
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:39:34AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> I propose that we continue using usertags for this purpose, but only
> two of them - one for security, and one for non-security.
> We can use the 'pending' tag to differentiate between issues that are
> fixed in svn and those that are
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 03:29:17PM +, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Author: waldi
> Date: Thu Mar 15 15:29:17 2007
> New Revision: 8361
>
> Modified:
>dists/trunk/linux-2.6/debian/changelog
>dists/trunk/linux-2.6/debian/templates/control.source.in
> Log:
> Revert r8360.
i don't respect that
Same problem with 2.6.18-4-k7.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a
Linux ws 2.6.18-4-k7 #1 SMP Wed Feb 21 16:48:19 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
Just found this bug through google by keywords "strace qemu ioctl
TUNSETIFF EPERM"
--
Best wishes,
~ Serge. pubkeys: http://uch.net/~fisher/keys.as
Your message dated Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:21:56 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#404794: linux-image-2.6.18-3-686: Pb while trying ioctl on
/dev/net/tun (module tun)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:47:00PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 03:29:17PM +, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Author: waldi
> > Date: Thu Mar 15 15:29:17 2007
> > New Revision: 8361
> >
> > Modified:
> >dists/trunk/linux-2.6/debian/changelog
> >dists/trunk/linux-2
According to policy 5.6.3:
List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the
package, if any. If the package has other maintainers beside the one
named in the Maintainer field, their names and email addresses should
be listed here.
Given this, I believe anyone on the kernel team
I reverted back to i386 and my problem disappeared. I prefer to be able to
use my hardware :-), so I'll probably be staying with i386. I could help
test this in the future by installing amd64 on a separate partition, if
anyone decides to spend time on this bug.
Thank you,
--
Troy
--
To U
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 14:32 -0600, dann frazier wrote:
[...]
> Does this match other people's interpretations?
Yes.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had a problem with the firmware when installing Debian Etch using the net
installation disk as it wasn't included due to license restrictions. This is
how I solved it if you might be interested:
http://john.parnefjord.se/node/8 http://john.parnefjord.se/node/8
// John
Frederik Schueler-2
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:32:29PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> Does this match other people's interpretations? Let's please use this
> thread to achieve consensus on Uploaders usage.
No.
Bastian
--
The sight of death frightens them [Earthers].
-- Kras the Klingon, "Friday's Chi
Your message dated Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:47:06 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This bug was traced to hardware problems.
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 n
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:32:29PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > Does this match other people's interpretations? Let's please use this
> > thread to achieve consensus on Uploaders usage.
>
> No.
Hi Bastian,
Would you be so kind as
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:32:29PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > Does this match other people's interpretations? Let's please use this
> > thread to achieve consensus on Uploaders usage.
>
> No.
What is your interpretation Bastian?
I would like to add that for me this is a release critical bug.
Firewalls that use the hostap_plx module will break if upgraded to
etch.
The following patch was posted on the hostap mailing list and is
reported to be working, i have not tested it.
http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/hostap/2006-Octo
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:30:54PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 14:32 -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> [...]
> > Does this match other people's interpretations?
>
> Yes.
>
> Norbert
ack
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
usplash_0.4-43-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
usplash_0.4-43-1.dsc
usplash_0.4-43.orig.tar.gz
usplash_0.4-43-1.diff.gz
usplash_0.4-43-1_i386.deb
libusplash0_0.4-43-1_i386.deb
libusplash-dev_0.4-43-1_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue
(new) libusplash-dev_0.4-43-1_i386.deb optional misc
Theming support files for usplash
This package contains everything you need to make a usplash theme,
including an example
(new) libusplash0_0.4-43-1_i386.deb optional misc
userspace bootsplash library
This package contains the runtime library
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:54:57PM -0600, Oscar Maim? Gallego wrote:
> hello:
> i am a cuban universitary student. I am an asterisk begginer and i
> need to install asterisk, but i dont have the kernel-headers
> 2.6.8-2-386 packages, and i need them.
2.6.8-2-386 packages have been superseded by th
On Thursday 15 March 2007 21:32, dann frazier wrote:
> Given this, I believe anyone on the kernel team should be permitted an
> entry in the Uploaders field. I also do not believe that the presence
> of a maintainer's name in the Uploaders field grants them any
> additional privileges. Uploads stil
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:19:11AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 21:32, dann frazier wrote:
> > Given this, I believe anyone on the kernel team should be permitted an
> > entry in the Uploaders field. I also do not believe that the presence
> > of a maintainer's name in the Up
Package: linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64
Version: 2.6.18.dfsg.1-11
Severity: important
Hi,
I'm running kernel 2.6.18-4-amd64 on a FujitsuSiemens RX 400 computer,
equipped with 8 GB RAM. The computer is used as our file server and
unfortunately, it crashed two times this week with the following kernel
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:32:29PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> According to policy 5.6.3:
>
> List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the
> package, if any. If the package has other maintainers beside the one
> named in the Maintainer field, their names and email addresses s
30 matches
Mail list logo
