On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 17:03 CST:
>
> > I'm applying this patch now, but I just wanted to touch on the Fedora
> > thing quickly. Their headers are now generated as a separate -headers
> > package for kernel. This is what i
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 17:03 CST:
> I'm applying this patch now, but I just wanted to touch on the Fedora
> thing quickly. Their headers are now generated as a separate -headers
> package for kernel. This is what it says in the spec file:
Just out of curiosity, why is this ne
On 3/2/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 02 March 2007 22:50, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info, Arden. That's good enough for me to ensure that
> > > the scsi headers only get installed by glibc. Patc
On 3/2/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 02 March 2007 22:50, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the info, Arden. That's good enough for me to ensure that
> > the scsi headers only get installed by glibc. Patch attached.
>
> Patch looks fine to me, feel free to commit it
On Friday 02 March 2007 22:50, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Thanks for the info, Arden. That's good enough for me to ensure that
> the scsi headers only get installed by glibc. Patch attached.
Patch looks fine to me, feel free to commit it Dan, thanks. Is this worth
reporting upstream (i.e. to David
On 3/2/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
>> /usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
>
> Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fe
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 20:34, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
> > /usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
>
> Should we be addressing this?
Yes.
> I noticed that in Fedora they remove the
> scsi di
On 2/14/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
> /usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fedora they remove the
scsi directory from the generated headers. DIY is doing something
similar.
http://w
