Hi,
http://www.jonobacon.org/2016/08/29/linux-linus-bradley-open-source-protection/
just popped up in my rss feed and I thought I'd share it with you… it's
a comment on the recent GPL enforcement debate on the (upstream) kernel
list.
I basically agree with Jono here.
--
cheers,
* Aurelien Jarno
It's already packaged:
[...]
| * Package name : kernel-patch-2.4-low-latency
| Upstream Author : Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| * URL : http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/schedlat.html
| * License : GPL
| Description : Reduces the
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:43:34AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> It's already packaged:
[...]
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ > apt-cache show kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4
> Package: kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4
Oops ! Sorry, closing the bug...
I searched with apt-cache for low-late
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:43:06AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:43:34AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > It's already packaged:
> [...]
>
> > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ > apt-cache show kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4
> > Package: ke
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kernel-image-2.4.22-xfs
Version : 2.4.22-3-1
Upstream Author : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> et al.
* License : GPL
Description : Linux kernel image for version 2.4.22 w/ XFS support
This package is essenti
retitle 275192 ITP: acx100-source -- ACX100/ACX111 wireless network drivers
source
thanks
Hi Aurelien!
You wrote:
> Bas Zoetekouw a écrit :
> >Package: wnpp
> >Severity: wishlist
> >
> >* Package name: acx100-kernel-src
> > Version : 0.2.0p
Am Sonntag, den 30.08.2009, 10:23 + schrieb
kar...@brueckenschlaeger.de:
> My wish:
> * please provide a (half) automated, maybe interactive, way to verify
> the
> configuration of fstab / menu.lst (and related) in any matching
> postinst
> script
> * in #debian-devel i got the hint to switch f
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-15
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : kernel-patch-scanlogic
Version : 1.0
Upstream Authors : Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://people.debi
ASSUME_KERNEL to 2.6.1 in pychess file and
> > > then the main window loaded but still it freezes when I start playing
> > > the game.
> > >
> > > What exactly does this export statement do? Is the problem with the
> > > new kernels or the old kernels?
One of the
Userspace Program and onle of the kernel-module.
the kernel module should include the source with the posibility of
building module-packages with module-assistant.
How should the tree and the rules-file looklike?
Does anyone know a good howto? (I read debian mtg etc.)
Greez Pasal
Hi,
I have experince mostly with the out-of-tree module Zaptel.
I'm personally happy with m-a. It works resonably well for me. Though I
appreciate the goal of cross-vendor compatibility.
Some comments:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> 1) It includes
compatibility.
That's why I'm trying to introduce DKMS!
> Some comments:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00:38AM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
> > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment kernel
> > headers get installed, your modul
can be unloaded? Is there a --force option? But this is another
> story :)
Maybe it's possible (I'm not exactly sure. I think it's possible, at
least in most cases). But do I want this? Do I want to shut down my PBX
because of the Ubuntu kernel upgrade of the month?
Which is why I
;
> > I believe this is a bug in the zaptel init scripts... shouldn't they check
> > whether they can be unloaded? Is there a --force option? But this is another
> > story :)
>
> Maybe it's possible (I'm not exactly sure. I think it's possible, at
>
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a DKMS control file:
>
> 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment kernel
> headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt.
This is achieved
eve
> some effort should be made to make a "central repository" (like for
> autopackage, and for other similar "cross-vendor" projects) where to store
> "vanilla" tarballs. Mario, do you know of any "central source" currently
> available?
>
The origina
Hi Cohen:
Keep in mind, if there is a new kernel that gets installed, this will
build the driver for that kernel, but nothing will be activated until
you reboot. That choice is your own. Due to the kernel postinstall
service, you won't even need to build the modules during the next boot
Hi David:
I'll add on the Ubuntu kernel team here to get some comments on this
postinstall hook functionality and it's origins.
Regards
David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
>
>> If you have AUTOINSTALL set to yes in a D
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:17:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment
> > > > kernel headers get installed, your module
Hi Josselin:
As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt) is implementing the
idea of package groups that have sticky dependencies. This should mean
that when a package gets installed, it will need to register with the
package group. When a kernel with a new ABI is available, it won'
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
> > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
>
> Some kind of check inside DKMS? In the end, that's a Bash script, and
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
> > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
> >
&g
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
> > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
> &
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:29 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > 1) It includes a kernel postinstall hook. This means that, the moment
> > > kernel
> > > headers get installed, your modules are automatically rebuilt.
> >
> > Seems just as easy
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
> > installed cannot launch installation of other packages.
>
> Uhm, right.
> I believe there could be
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:39 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 19:23 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
&g
always
> > > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
> > >
> > > Some kind of check inside DKMS? In the end, that's a Bash script, and the
> > > Debian maintainer (i.e. me, in this case) could just maintain a patch for
> > > this (or
dkms?
Just install build-essential (and what else is needed) alongside with
the proper linux-headers-* package.
> What is the name of the generated deb package? Can two packages of
> different kernel architectures liv in the same system? 2.6.26-1-486 and
> 2.6.26-1-686 .
DKMS *does* *not* generat
> > > One of the issues I’m wondering about is: how do you ensure you always
> > > > > have the kernel headers for the installed kernels?
> > > >
> > > > Some kind of check inside DKMS? In the end, that's a Bash script, and
> >
gt; > trick at least for the default kernel. (Depending on just
> > > linux-headers-2.6 is not enough, since linux-headers-2.6.xx-y-$subarch
> > > provides it).
> >
> > I think you meant:
> >
> > depend on linux-headers-2.6.26-1-all
> >
>
-init-tools so that these
directories were included in the search path for modprobe.
note that this is non-conflicting with rolling the modules into a .deb
package too, but i think is the only clean way to build/install kernel
modules if you are already within the package installation process.
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 20:02 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> > apt-get is able to determine the architecture he's running on, right?
> > Anyways, dkms is a shells script, it could use dpkg-architecture to get the
> > right string
an alternative, i'd suggest:
>
> - building the modules as part of the upgrade process using dpkg triggers or
> some other clever mechanism to determine when it needs to be done
Ok, this is what I was trying to suggest :)
> - storing the modules in a nested subdirectory
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 21:44 +0200, David Paleino a écrit :
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > You cannot install packages in a triggered script, or in whatever way
> > that will be determined from within a package itself.
>
> Is there any particular reason for
rint a message suggesting what to do next
> >
> > From your reply, I understand that b1) wouldn't be possible to achieve. Why?
> > Can't triggers start external programs?
>
> Triggers are run from within dpkg, and cannot launch new APT/dpkg
> processes. And in all
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> *Other*
>
> 5) Interoperability with different distributions. DKMS tarballs can be used on
> RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu, or Debian. If there are different kernels, patches can be
> included in the DKMS tarball to enable support on d
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Note, we would also need to ensure that alien does a good job
> with DKMS RPMs.
dkms can build deb packages. They need dkms to be installed too (so you
need it installed on all your servers, not just on the build machine),
but it works fine
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 18:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> Do you actually have a working build system? Must you have a build
> system on every host?
I have one on a testbed yes. I have a box which has dkms,
build-essential and headers installed. I import the driver source
tarball, run dkms mkde
On jeu, 2008-09-11 at 10:00 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> This mail is being sent to see what Debian developers (and users)
> think about
> this framework: it's useless if no package uses it :)
I currently use DKMS at work on some servers which run Debian. All other
run RHEL, and have fully update
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:35 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:43:39 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > You’d run into the same issue as module-assistant has: a package being
> > > installed cannot launch installation of other pa
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann
> asked
> me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
> After some talking with upstream, here I have the answer.
Only down side I worry about is tha
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> As I understand, the dpkg maintainer (Michael Vogt)
Do you mean "apt maintainer"? TTBOMK, Michael has never been involved with
dpkg maintenance; so is this implementation going to be in dpkg, or apt?
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:00PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2], and Daniel Baumann
> > asked
> > me what advantages it had over module-assistant.
> > After some talking with
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:29:44 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > This is achieved through the installation of a script in:
> >
> > /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/
> > /etc/kernel/postinst.d/
> > /etc/kernel/prerm.d/
> >
> > A quick search with apt-file didn
ad". We all agree here, no? But, what the
case of non-free drivers, for example?
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal
The main point:
"There is no justification for shipping kernel modules as separate packages
within Fedora, in either source (dkms payload) or
an developers (and users) think about
> this framework: it's useless if no package uses it :)
Indeed, that's why it's important to have the kernel team involved and
Daniel in particular as he currently takes care of
linux-modules-{extra,contrib}
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-se
@debian-kernel: please see the full thread at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/09/msg00229.html>
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:00:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Raphael,
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello *,
> > some time ago I fil
gt; http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal
That may be true for an out-of-tree modules. However, let's recall that
Fedora ships with Latest kernel and Debian (Stable) doesn't. Hence
Debian should be more concerened with back
rectly removed when you remove the
kernel image – which is feasible with a trigger – there is nothing wrong
with it.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`-
t you install it, it builds modules for your running kernel. As soon as
> you install a new kernel, it will build modules for that kernel too. Any old
> kernels that you have, modules will be built as soon as you boot into the
> kernel.
> Compare this to module-assistant. You have to in
s should be the norm. Having many files under /lib that
> cannot be tracked by debsums is not something I like.
>
> [..]
>
> Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name
> installed on the system. dpkg does not like this. Hence kernel modules
> deb
o for drivers that we won’t
> ship binary packages for.
That's why I originally proposed the "DKMS way", i.e.:
dkms add [..]
dkms remove [..]
dkms status [..]
...
> As long as the .ko files are correctly removed when you remove the
> kernel image – which is feasible with a t
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:04PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:12:59 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > Another issue: with rpm it is OK to have several packages of the same name
> > installed on the system. dpkg does not like this. Hence kernel modules
> &
; > installed on the system. dpkg does not like this. Hence kernel modules
> > > deb packages have the name $BASE-$KVERS (e.g: lirc-modules-2.6.26-1-686),
> > > whereas rpm packages of kernel modules tend to encode $KVERS in the
> > > Version field alone.
> >
&g
supplementary package installation.
> As long as the .ko files are correctly removed when you remove the
> kernel image – which is feasible with a trigger – there is nothing wrong
> with it.
If you remove dkms, and remove kernel afterwards, you will keep cruft for
the eternity. Handling
it is possible to achieve that and how much perverted it would
be, but I really don’t think this is the good way to go.
> > As long as the .ko files are correctly removed when you remove the
> > kernel image – which is feasible with a trigger – there is nothing wrong
> > with it.
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Upon initial inspection of the dkms script, it seems to generate
> deb packages whose name does not not include $KVERS . But I didn't test
> it.
>
This is correct, because you don't want to have multiple DKMS packages
installed to support many
On ven, 2008-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we
> won’t
> > ship binary packages for.
>
> Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb of those modules
> and
> installing them?
That's exactly what “dkms mkdeb” do
On ven, 2008-09-12 at 11:32 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> This is a major bug IMHO. It means that at least for i386
> dkms-generated
> debs cannot be put in repositories. Thus you require a build
> environment
> on the target host.
No. You only need dkms.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Descripti
arget host.
>>
>
> No. You only need dkms.
>
Hmm... How does dkms build the modules for a build kernel, then?
Surely a compiler and linker must be needed, right?
J.L.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
stalled normally, under
/lib/modules/${KVERS} and tracked by dpkg.
One idea which comes to mind (without further thinking) is to merge both
approaches: dkms could become a "subsystem" of module-assistant in Debian:
As presented above, installing kernel-headers and/or booting a kernel
for whic
ceptional; it is for desktops and
laptops with non-free graphics and wifi. In most cases you don’t care of
having distributable packages.
> When the rebuild is triggered by booting with a new kernel, dpkg is not
> active and can be invoked to *register* the new modules, hence realizing
&g
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:28:49PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On ven, 2008-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Why? I think this is the only sane way to go for drivers that we
> > won’t
> > > ship binary packages for.
> >
> > Why? What's wrong with dynamically generating .deb
exceptional; it is for desktops and
> laptops with non-free graphics and wifi. In most cases you don’t care of
> having distributable packages.
Dell developed dkms for Linux servers it ships. Many servers ship with
disk controllers, network controllers and such that are not yet
supported i
On sam, 2008-09-13 at 00:21 +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> > No. You only need dkms.
> >
> Hmm... How does dkms build the modules for a build kernel, then?
> Surely a compiler and linker must be needed, right?
You build the module on the build host, then put it on a .deb pa
On sam, 2008-09-13 at 06:21 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Can you do that if you generate modules for both 2.6.26-1-686 and
> 2.6.26-1-vserver-686 ?
Will tell you on monday.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
OoO En cette matinée ensoleillée du samedi 13 septembre 2008, vers
09:08, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait :
> Do not assume everybody maintaining the system know of dkms (or of m-a
> or such). Knowledge of debsums or equivalent should be assumed from
> anybody maintaining a Debian s
Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]:
> > > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
> > > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
> > > obvious way of integrity protection.
> >
> > Dpkg is not tripwire. If you think you can re
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 09:32:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:08:05AM +]:
> > > > - Having files *vital* to the system not tracked by dpkg is
> > > > counter-productive. At the very least it thwarts the most basic and
> > > > obvious way of integrit
Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit :
> And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is that
> you can not install two of them on your system if you have two different
> kernel variants.
Then it is a bug in the Debian dkms package, and
On dim, 2008-09-14 at 09:15 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 à 07:08 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit :
> > And as I mentioned before, the problem with those generated debs is
> that
> > you can not install two of them on your system if you have two
>
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:02 +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> That may be true for an out-of-tree modules. However, let's recall that
> Fedora ships with Latest kernel and Debian (Stable) doesn't. Hence
> Debian should be more concerened with backporting.
Right now Debian d
Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 07:54 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
> On dim, 2008-09-14 at 22:36 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > (DKMS actually moves the old version out of the way and
> > moves the new version into its place. I think we might want to modify
> > that behaviour in Debian, perhap
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello *,
> some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2]
So, what's the final status of this thread?
Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it?
I wouldn't want to drop it -- if there's no consensus or, at least, someone
w
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:00:38 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
> > Hello *,
> > some time ago I filed a RFS [1] for DKMS [2]
>
> So, what's the final status of this thread?
> Should I continue working on the package? Should I drop it?
>
> I w
On mer, 2008-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Should I continue working on DKMS for Debian, or is that all wasted
> time?
Go ahead, it *will* be useful, and isn't intended to replace
module-assistant anyway. It may have some problems, but they will be
identified, reported and fixed.
C
Hi folks
Because of some recent events, I thought about the possibility for
packages to depend against kernel module packages. As we don't want to
dictate the usage of Debian provided kernels, we need a last resort
fallback to the modules source.
My first solution was something lik
AFAICT debian-user would have been a more appropriate place for this.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 16:25:54 -0400, John F Davis wrote:
> I am trying to read the docs in the Documentation/DocBook directory of a
> linux kernel.
>
> I do this: make pdfdocs and I get an error about nee
Hey list,
Running debuild as normal user under the 2.5.73+ kernel results in fakeroot
actually setting the file ownership to root (or any other uid/gid for that
matter). The result is that the parts which don't run under fakeroot -
e.g. debian/rules won't be able to write to
David Z Maze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My kernel module packages (lm-sensors and i2c) both build-depend on
> kernel-build-2.4.20-1, which provides enough bits to build packages
> (as far as I can tell, successfully). Problem is, evidence suggests
> that kernel-build-2.4.20-1
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How many Debian users are there that will use lm-sensors and i2c
> modules for a prepackaged kernel on a non-i386 architecture?
I've had at least one user ask me about support for powerpc, which is
the big thing that's driving me to
k altogether and just have /boot/vmlinuz point to the proper
kernel image? (on my system there is no symlink, I just update grub to
point to a new kernel image). I don't see what grub has to be patched
for.
Morgon
--
"Man is the only creature capable of hating itself" -- Governor of Japan
in The End of Evangelion
Last time I posted something comprehensive, they nit picked the hell out of
it on the list. So I'm going for the incremental style.
> kernel image? (on my system there is no symlink, I just update grub to
> point to a new kernel image). I do
> > symlink to boot from.
>
> In this situation, why don't you just forget about the /vmlinuz
> symlink altogether and just have /boot/vmlinuz point to the proper
> kernel image?
That is exactly what I want.
But
/vmlinuz -> /boot/vmlinuz, and vmlinuz.old -> /boot/
oot loader because of software raid, or possibly lvm
> (haven't done this yet, but thinking about it).
> I regularly build my own kernels with make-kpkg, so I changed it to
> put the vmlinuz symlink in /boot, and changed my menu.lst file in
> grub to use this symlink to boot from
debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multi-level symlinks for default kernel
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:17:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:29:59 -0700, Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL P
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:37:40AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 20030812 (Debian prerelease)
> I'm getting a new error when I compile the kernel. In the structure
> below, it doesn't like the declaration for slot_tablen complaining
> __u8 short slot_tablelen;
Isn't it just a plain error? Either it's a char, or it's a short. It
can't be both, right?
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:44:11PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > __u8 short slot_tablelen;
>
> Isn't it just a plain error? Either it's a char, or it's a short. It
> can't be both, right?
That's what I think, too. It looks, too, to be something added in a
patch because the indentation is dif
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > __u8 short slot_tablelen;
>
> Isn't it just a plain error? Either it's a char, or it's a short. It
> can't be both, right?
gcc used to eat it but now it rightfully complains about it.
Its a bug in the source.
MfG
Goswin
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:37, Marc Singer wrote:
> Are we expecting the latest unstalble gcc compiler to correctly
> compiler the kernel?
Yes, as others have mentioned the code in question is buggy.
If the code is in a Debian kernel-source or kernel-patch package then please
file a bug
#include
* martin f krafft [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 01:00:47PM]:
> Thinking about it, I argue that it would be better to install them
> into /lib/modules/`uname -r`/bcm since
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel is the hierarchy used by the
> kernel-image and should not be touched by additi
also sprach Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.24.1353 +0200]:
> IMHO the right location is /lib/modules/`uname -r`/net.
So what about Bug#189297?
Where then should comedi install itself? comedi drivers are for data
acquisition cards.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where then should comedi install itself? comedi drivers are for data
> acquisition cards.
/lib/modules/VERSION/misc?
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more in
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> i see pcmcia-source and comedi-source installing the modules into
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/pcmcia and /lib/modules/`uname -r`/comedi.
> my bcm4400-source and bcm5700-source packages install into
> /lib/modules/`unam
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:03:23PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Where then should comedi install itself? comedi drivers are for data
> > acquisition cards.
>
> /lib/modules/VERSION/misc?
no. that's wrong for 2.4+ kernels.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > no. that's wrong for 2.4+ kernels.
>
> Interesting, as it seems to be the status quo; I have a bunch of
> modules in /lib/modules/2.4.21/misc (from four different modules
> packag
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> no. that's wrong for 2.4+ kernels.
Interesting, as it seems to be the status quo; I have a bunch of
modules in /lib/modules/2.4.21/misc (from four different modules
packages produced via make-kpkg), which incidentally all seem to load
fine.
No nee
Moin Christoph!
Christoph Hellwig schrieb am Sunday, den 24. August 2003:
> > > Where then should comedi install itself? comedi drivers are for data
> > > acquisition cards.
> >
> > /lib/modules/VERSION/misc?
>
> no. that's wrong for 2.4+ kernels.
Any evidence? AFAICS modutils don't have probl
also sprach Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.24.1806 +0200]:
> the right place is /lib/modules/${kver}/${package}
says who?
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and us
1101 - 1200 of 2621 matches
Mail list logo
