On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 12:15:29PM +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > this is pretty useless in this case, > > if you want to do something usefull grab 2.6.20-rc3 from upstream > > and file bugzilla.kernel.org bugs for the open ones. > > afaik acpi is still not settled, may be othere ones too. > > I am not a Linux kernel developer; I am a Debian developer. The > purpose of this bug report is to document an issue (and its > workaround) in Debian Etch. Even if the bug is fixed upstream, it is > still present in Debian Etch at this time, and will affect other > people for as long as the buggy kernel is in Debian Etch. > > > linux-2.6 meta packet has way to many bogus or valid reports that a > > user would look at it, so i highly question this documentation. > > As can be seen from the subject line, I did not file this bug report > against linux-2.6; I filed it against linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. > There are, currently, 6 bugs on that package, none of which seem bogus > to me.
haha, and how long do you thing will linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64 live? there is already an linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64 in svn and it will get uploaded soon. consequence your bugs gets reassigned to linux-2.6 anyway i'll stop from posting to that bug report as the attitude that a bugreport is per principle valuable documentation and the attached love to that little value is not worth the time spend. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]