On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:45:32AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
My bad. It turns out that 195.36.15 is completely broken upstream; I
have no clue how they get it to compile.
I can try and have a look at it. I was trying to see how to best get
2.6.33 supported yesterday (although I
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:48:32PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 05:29:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julian Gilbey j...@polya.uklinux.net writes:
No, it was compilation problems, which I think are to do with the
kernel-headers common package business. Indeed, I
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 05:29:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julian Gilbey j...@polya.uklinux.net writes:
No, it was compilation problems, which I think are to do with the
kernel-headers common package business. Indeed, I forgot to attach the
log - attached this time!
This is some
Julian Gilbey j...@polya.uklinux.net writes:
I tried building the latest version of the modules (195.36.15, based on
the 190.53-2 Debian package, with the source updated), but ran into this
same problem.
By this same problem do you mean the specific error message in this bug
report, namely:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julian Gilbey j...@polya.uklinux.net writes:
I tried building the latest version of the modules (195.36.15, based on
the 190.53-2 Debian package, with the source updated), but ran into this
same problem.
By this same problem
Julian Gilbey j...@polya.uklinux.net writes:
No, it was compilation problems, which I think are to do with the
kernel-headers common package business. Indeed, I forgot to attach the
log - attached this time!
This is some other problem, given that nvidia builds fine for me against
the same
6 matches
Mail list logo
