Your message dated Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:05:14 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#494633: openafs modules don’t build with etch kernel
2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64
has caused the Debian Bug report #494633,
regarding openafs modules don’t build with etch kernel 2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
494633: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494633
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: openafs-modules-source
Version: 1.4.2-6etch1
Severity: grave
Tags: etch
The new release of etch includes a new default kernel
2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64, and the etch openafs-modules-source package
doesn’t build against it:
CC [M]
/usr/src/modules/openafs/src/libafs/MODLOAD-2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64-MP/afs_atomlist.o
In file included from
/usr/src/modules/openafs/src/libafs/MODLOAD-2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64-MP/afs_atomlist.c:11:
/usr/src/modules/openafs/include/afs/param.h:36:26: error: linux/config.h: No
such file or directory
make[7]: ***
[/usr/src/modules/openafs/src/libafs/MODLOAD-2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64-MP/afs_atomlist.o]
Error 1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.4.6.dfsg1-1
(Telling the BTS that this bug doesn't exist in the current unstable or
lenny release.)
Anders Kaseorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The new release of etch includes a new default kernel
> 2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64, and the etch openafs-modules-source package
> doesn’t build against it:
You'll have to use backports.org. There was no mechanism for including
updated versions of openafs into the etchnhalf release, and at this point
in the release cycle, there's no real point in working on it further. I
asked about putting the version of OpenAFS into stable so that it would be
supported, and the release managers weren't particularly comfortable with
that.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
