> > can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile?
> >
> > hamish
> >
>
> Hamish,
> 2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg.
> I've been watching the lists and I don't think
> anyone has noticed yet (except you and me). 2.1.68 has all kinds of new
> signal stuff tha
2.1.70 is out now ...
--
Michael D. Harnois, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Washburn, IA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Life is a comedy for those who think,
a tragedy for those who feel." -- Anatole France
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "un
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Matthew R. Briggs wrote:
> Hamish,
> 2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg.
> I've been watching the lists and I don't think
> anyone has noticed yet (except you and me). 2.1.68 has all kinds of new
> signal stuff that don't compile pro
> Subject: kernel 2.1.68/69
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:19:41 +1100
> From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile?
>
> hamish
>
Hamish,
2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg.
I'
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HM> can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile?
I've been working on it, hopefully I'll get 2.1.69 to build sometime
today. :-) Thoughts so far:
-- linux/drivers/sound/Makefile is broken, or the Configure script
that calls it is broken. Add a line
5 matches
Mail list logo
