Roland Clobus <[email protected]> (2025-05-25): > Looking at the WWW for this issue: Is a call to `depmod` missing?
Oh, right. The other modules I'm including in this way are used way later, and the lack of depmod hasn't been spotted until now (the first module udeb that gets installed papers over that lack). I'll give it another shot. > However, I'm a bit surprised by having kernel 6.12.29 in the test > image. That's with a local d-i build, built against sid (I've been chasing quite a number of bugs lately). > I tested with kernel 6.12.27 (as that is present in the RC1 image), > because I assumed that 6.12.29 would not migrate to trixie due to > #1106070 (which would break all live images) > > So in summary: > * The netinst image needs `depmod` for the added kernel module(s) > * I didn't test the espeakup yet, but assume it will work Would you be willing to give espeakup a try with an updated image, with that extra depmod? I could also switch to building against trixie if that makes any difference for your testing, but if that's not stricitly required, I'd love not to toggle back and forth between trixie and sid (it's easy to leave extra packages — deb and/or udeb — on the side of the road while doing so). > * I hope we will have kernel 6.12.30, but definitely not 6.12.29 Sure thing. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois ([email protected]) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
