On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:04:31PM -0800, Aaron Read wrote:
There is a #235407 against the 'sml-nj' source package, should I
file one against the binary package as well?
That should be sufficient, I think.
Er, you don't *have* to always upload the newest upstream version?
I'm a little
Steve Langasek schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2004 um 17:24:38 -0800:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:19:43PM +0100, Joerg Friedrich wrote:
Sourcepackage: kdegraphics
the binary package kdegraphics, a simple metapackage, is Arch all and
depends on all binarys build from the kdegraphics
At Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:01:11 +0100,
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004, you wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:19:21PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Well, IIRC, it is enough to use _only_ the 32bit kernel, and that would
make it easier for us, because we don't need an extra
Hello,
I think there is a problem with kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686, but I'm not sure
whether I messed up something...
I installed sarge on a SATA host a while ago (Intel ICH, worked just
fine!). Now I upgraded from the installer's kernel-image-2.6.8-1-386 to
version 2.6.8-10 of the
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
Obviously, you cannot load the SATA modules if you need the SATA code to
access the hard disc.
Of course you can, that's what initial ramdisks are for.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:11:34AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
This mail should give an overview for a problem with woody-sarge upgrades
reported multiple times.
On woody-sarge upgrades, sometimes maintainer scripts fail with the
following error:
Can't locate File/Basename.pm in @INC (@INC
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:32:51PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:11:34AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
This mail should give an overview for a problem with woody-sarge upgrades
reported multiple times.
On woody-sarge upgrades, sometimes maintainer scripts fail with
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:11:34AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
I had a hard time reproducing it. I'm not sure yet, but a good trigger seems
to use aptitude (I usually take the one from sarge by upgrading there,
didn't tested it with the one from woody yet) and do the upgrade in
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:06:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
Obviously, you cannot load the SATA modules if you need the SATA code to
access the hard disc.
Of course you can, that's what initial ramdisks are for.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:27:56PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:06:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
Obviously, you cannot load the SATA modules if you need the SATA code to
access the hard disc.
Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I think there is a problem with kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686, but I'm not sure
whether I messed up something...
I installed sarge on a SATA host a while ago (Intel ICH, worked just
fine!). Now I upgraded from the installer's
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:37:52PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The problem is with near certainty that you updated from a
sata-ide driver to a sata-scsi driver. The device names for your disk
subsequently changed from /dev/hda to /dev/sda.
No, I am positive that I have been using
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:33:21PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The sml-nj package is related to the problem, but it has nothing to do with
what's in testing. Is there a reason for the name change of this package?
If the sml-nj package is done, you should request its removal from unstable
by
13 matches
Mail list logo
