and - what I assume are - some
> > instructions for DKMS (dkms.conf and some .c and .patch files) for
> > actually installing the deb package with dpkg.
> >
> > Earlier in this thread, this was also discussed
> > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b
age with make dkms_mkdeb. The resulting deb package actually has no
> > binaries inside but only source code and - what I assume are - some
> > instructions for DKMS (dkms.conf and some .c and .patch files) for
> > actually installing the deb package with dpkg.
> >
>
d .patch files) for
> actually installing the deb package with dpkg.
>
> Earlier in this thread, this was also discussed
> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832558#20).
>
> But then again the currently produced package works. So if no one else
> comp
mkdeb. The resulting deb package actually has no
> binaries inside but only source code and - what I assume are - some
> instructions for DKMS (dkms.conf and some .c and .patch files) for
> actually installing the deb package with dpkg.
>
> Earlier in this thread, this was also discus
was also discussed
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832558#20).
But then again the currently produced package works. So if no one else
complains, the behaviour may remain I guess (differentiating among
binary and non-binary packages just by name is probably not really needed).
Th
discussed
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832558#20).
But then again the currently produced package works. So if no one else
complains, the behaviour may remain I guess (differentiating among
binary and non-binary packages just by name is probably not really needed).
Thanks again for
OP here,
Am So, 13. Jan 2019 um 14:49:06 +0100 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:29:13 +0100 drake763 wrote:
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
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:29:13 +0100 drake763 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
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).
2) The fix in 2.6.1-3 produces (when creating a deb package) a package
named PACKAGENAME_amd64.de
Hello,
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:17:32 +0100 drake763 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 w
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
Hello,
I understand the exchange between upstream and Debian is a bit sluggish here,
but besides that, is there a reason why Pierre's patch has never been applied?
The current situation breaks mkdeb (in some cases?) (e.g. phc_intel [1]) and
this part of Pierre's patch would fix this:
> - fix mk
o: Limonciello, Mario ; 832...@bugs.debian.org;
> pkg-dkms-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Pkg-dkms-maint] Bug#832558: Fix dkms mkdeb / mkdsc / mkbmdeb
>
> Hi Marco,
>
> Problem is Debian dkms (v2.3) seems to be an old fork of github/dell
> dkms (v2.5). Support for mkbmde
ay, February 12, 2018 11:21 AM
>> To: 832...@bugs.debian.org
>> Subject: [Pkg-dkms-maint] Bug#832558: Fix dkms mkdeb / mkdsc / mkbmdeb
>>
>> Please find attached a patch for the dkms script (package version 2.3-3)
>> that fixes the following issues:
>>
>> - fix mkde
> -Original Message-
> From: Pkg-dkms-maint [mailto:pkg-dkms-maint-
> bounces+mario_limonciello=dell@lists.alioth.debian.org] On Behalf Of
> Pierre
> Neyron
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:21 AM
> To: 832...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: [Pkg-dkms-maint] Bu
Please find attached a patch for the dkms script (package version 2.3-3)
that fixes the following issues:
- fix mkdeb (1): mkdeb failed because a mv command was looking for a
package filename with -${debian_build_arch} instead of -all.
- fix mkdeb (2): allow creating a dkms package without requir
Should dkms packages generated with `dpkg mkdeb' not be of arch "all" ?
Unless they provide arch specific blobs, they are just source code to be
compiled right ?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:54:51 -0300 Martin Galvan
wrote:
> Package: dkms
> Version: 2.3-3ubuntu3
> Tags: p
Package: dkms
Version: 2.3-3ubuntu3
Tags: patch
Followup-For: Bug #832558
I'm attaching a patch that fixes /etc/dkms/template-dkms-mkdeb/debian/control
so that the generated .deb has the arch suffix instead of 'all'.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers
This also affects me on Ubuntu 17.10. Why hasn't this been fixed yet?
Package: dkms
Version: 2.2.0.3-5
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
when creating a source-only deb, dkms will call dpkg-buildpackage, which
creates a *_all.deb package. Version 2.2.0.3-5 introduced
$debian_build_arch as part of the then invoked mv command, which fails.
>From a quick glance, ca
20 matches
Mail list logo
