Your message dated Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed
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 now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jul 2002 09:14:00 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 13 04:14:00 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from tail.sads.com (sadsho.sads.com) [213.210.36.107] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 17TIyW-0008EF-00; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:14:00 -0500
Received: by sadsho.sads.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
        id <3Z75RZKD>; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:09:56 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Jon Rowlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: conf.modules depreciated but still created by linuxconf
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:09:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Package: Linuxconf 
version : 1.17r5-2

Whilst trying to use a number of different rtl8139 ethernet cards, I have
modified the contents in /etc/modutils/aliases to correctly include the
modules to load at boot time.

In addition, I have tried to use linuxconf to configure other settings.

linuxconf creates a file called conf.modules in /etc whereas what appears to
be required by modprobe is modules.conf

Once this file has been created by linuxconf, modprobe complains that the
use of conf.modules has been depreciated.

I presume that it means that this functionality has been replaced in recent
revisions and that the filename has been changed around.

removing this file and manually updating the details in
/etc/network/interfaces the network card is now working properly and can
connect to the LAN.

(also applies to linuxconf-x with the same version number)

jON


Jon Rowlan
Consultant & Director,
SADS Ltd
phone +44 (0) 1622 600 007
fax +44 (0) 1622 761 046 

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 152831-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 May 2003 10:41:39 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 11 05:41:38 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from bangpath.uucico.de [195.71.9.197] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 19EoGg-0005NL-00; Sun, 11 May 2003 05:41:23 -0500
Received: by bangpath.uucico.de (Postfix, from userid 10)
        id C121326BB7; Sun, 11 May 2003 12:41:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by regression.cyrius.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
        id 3E2E523D48; Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000 (EST)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000
From: Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Removed
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=4.0
        tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_MUTT
        version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_09
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_09 
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

This package has been removed from Debian unstable because it has been
orphaned for a very long time and nobody adopted it.  See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200304/msg00005.html
for more information.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to