On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:32:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:35:46PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:28:03PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > > If it doesn't work and you can't fix it and upstream won't, then the > > > package should be removed altogether. > > > > Bah, devfs is not mandatory. There are situation where xxgdb could > > anyway be useful as is. > > While this might had been true three years ago, it isn't anymore, due > to udev. I can just agree with Bas here - either this gets fixed, > because on a current system it isn't useful at all if you don't grow > your own kernels and ignore quite a lot of other stuff. > > > I'll see if I could build up a suitable patch for that. > > Would be nice if you had done any efforts on that front... Just > tagging the bugreport upstream and doing nothing on it won't help the > bug go away, I'm sorry. :/ > > So long, > Rhonda
I was working on a unix pts patch some times ago, I had some issues with forking and the strange mechanism used in xxgdb to open an independent xterm, so a bit in stand-by on it... -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
