Your message dated Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:21:24 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321940: Still an issue?
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; 8 Aug 2005 11:24:22 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 08 04:24:22 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.28]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1E25jx-00025g-00; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:24:22 -0700
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mwinf0301.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 407151C00572
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:23:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (AStrasbourg-251-1-61-106.w82-126.abo.wanadoo.fr
[82.126.129.106])
by mwinf0301.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 233381C00559;
Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:23:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-ME-UUID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from sven by localhost with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1E25iH-0005V8-UG; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:22:37 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux-2.6: [powerpc] per flavour archs should have asm-ppc64 symlink
too.
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:22:37 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: normal
Hi, with current 2.6.12, the symlinks for asm-* are fine, and i belive it is
enough to ship -2 as is, as we don't have ppc64 kernels yet.
Now, the current setup includes asm-ppc and asm-ppc64 in the common kernel
header files, but the per flavour include only the asm-ppc symlink.
I believe that we should either provide both, or provide one or the other
depending on being a 64bit or 32bit flavour. Providing both is way easier to
do.
The same happens for the asm symlink too, but i believe that it should be set
correctly for 64bit or 32bit flavours, not sure though, but this will need
checking on the way to -3.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-powerpc
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 321940-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Sep 2005 05:29:28 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 06 22:29:28 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.29]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ECsUy-0000oL-00; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:29:28 -0700
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mwinf0209.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 53B8B1C00219
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:28:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pegasos (AStrasbourg-251-1-27-135.w82-126.abo.wanadoo.fr
[82.126.145.135])
by mwinf0209.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3B6F81C00209;
Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:28:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-ME-UUID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from sven by pegasos with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1ECsNG-0001RY-0L; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:21:30 +0200
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:21:24 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#321940: Still an issue?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:34:48PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> Can you please check whether this bug still relevant for newer kernel
> packages? I hope it is fixed in -5 or -6.
Yes, this is fixed.
In -3, -4, -5. Can you perhaps add it to the changelog for documentation
purpose ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
