On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:29:13 +0100 drake763 <drake...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > Thank you very much for your work and reply! I have three issues/questions: > > 1) The bug is *NOT* fixed in 2.6.1-1 (which is in stretch-backports) but > first in 2.6.1-3 (testing/sid). >
this is normal, I'll backport the fix once you ack my changes :) > 2) The fix in 2.6.1-3 produces (when creating a deb package) a package > named PACKAGENAME_amd64.deb, where amd64 is my compiling computer's > architecture. However, it was my understanding that dkms created debs > should have *_all.deb as a naming convention? But this may well be a > misunderstanding on my side. ok lets make this clear on *both* sides :) dkms is a tool to build custom kernel modules, with the user-pc (e.g. when they aren't ship with the kernel itself). Now, dkms run on amd64 produces binaries for *amd64* architecture, and if you run the same command on i386 you will produce kernel modules that can run only on *i386* architecture (see the other bug that introduced this change: #832558). *all* is a suffix used when the built artifacts are the same in every architecture (e.g. an image, a pdf, an html file, a documentation package, that is the same everywhere). Having _all.deb was a mistake on the module generation, because the same file would have had no information about its content, and would have been called exactly the same on different architectures. So, I'm confident enough that the fix now is "correct", and I hope somebody else would ack my changes, because I'm not a direct user of this feature, so my blind fix might have been incorrectly applied. > 3) Will this fix be backported to Stretch? Or only to Stretch backports? > What would be the debian way to deal with such bugs? I uploaded the fix in stretch-backports, will be available in a day or two > > Of course, these issues shall not reopen this bug, it's just things that > are unclear on my side. the bug is fixed, really no need to reopen (unless my explanation is wrong, and the bug is not really fixed, in that case yes, please reopen it). Updating stable is useful to fix bugs, but I honestly don't care that much, since stable-backports is going fixed soon. (fixing stable means that somebody should confirm that version 2.3-2 is affected, and provide a debdiff with the bug fixed) G. > > Again thank you very much. > > All best > > On 1/2/19 4:28 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:17:32 +0100 drake763 <drake...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'd also second the request to patch this bug. This bug is not present > >> in upstream but only in debian and thus ubuntu. It was introduced in > >> debian specific patch [1]. > >> > >> The part of Pierre's patch mentioned in this thread would fix this and > >> it would be highly appreciated if at least the relevant part of the > >> patch could be applied. > >> > >> Thanks a lot! > >> > >> [1] > >> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dkms/blob/master/debian/patches/0004-mkbmdeb-support-for-lean-binary-package-with-only-th.patch > >> > > can you please confirm that version 2.6.1-1 is good, and we can close this > > bug? > > > > thanks > > > > Gianfranco > > > >
