On 2020-04-05 02:21, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 15, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > The kmod binaries are actually the one being used, so yes please add a
> > kmod-udeb.
> Does it look good to you?
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/md/kmod/-/commit/801ce705d39efdae9411192b1c33aee8ad522cc7
>
> drwxr-xr
On Mar 15, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The kmod binaries are actually the one being used, so yes please add a
> kmod-udeb.
Does it look good to you?
https://salsa.debian.org/md/kmod/-/commit/801ce705d39efdae9411192b1c33aee8ad522cc7
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2020-04-05 02:14 ./
drwxr-xr-x root/
On 2020-03-15 04:05, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 14, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > The binaries should probably be moved to a different package like
> > kmod-udeb, as they conflict with busybox-udeb. Right now the kmod ones
> > are used, but it depends on the unpack order.
> Good to know after 8 y
On Mar 14, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The binaries should probably be moved to a different package like
> kmod-udeb, as they conflict with busybox-udeb. Right now the kmod ones
> are used, but it depends on the unpack order.
Good to know after 8 years! Should I bother at all building a kmod-udeb
if
Package: kmod
Version: 26+20191223-1
Severity: serious
Tags: d-i
Justification: Policy 8.6.4
The libkmod2 shlibs file contains the following entry:
| libkmod 2 libkmod2 (>= 26+20191223)
| udeb: libkmod 2 libkmod2-udeb (>= 26+20191223)
It means that libkmod.so.2 is supposed to be provided by libk
5 matches
Mail list logo
