On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Of course the reason matters, but the bug simply was about a binary
> > package not being available.
> no, read again. #441146 is about including some definition files into
> linux-modules-extra-2.6, not more, not less. as this was done, the bug
> is fixed.
Maybe we should agree upon disagreeing on this one. I try to view this
from the user's point of view and the only way to help the user is to
provide a package. But then Torsten might have meant the definition
> > IMO the only way to fix this is to deliver
> > the package.
> are you really not getting it? the /new/ problem is a problem in
> virtualbox-ose-source. it has absolutely nothing to do with
> linux-modules-extra-2.6. it can not be fixed in linux-modulex-extra-2.6.
> that is why it is not a bug in linux-modules-extra-2.6.
You did read my message, didn't you?
> > Fine with me. I don't mind having this bug reassigned. To be honest in
> > my opinion we should have two open bugs, one against
> > virtualbox-ose-source and one against linux-modules-extra-2.6 with the
> > latter one being blocked by the former. I still disagree with you guys
> > closing the bug though, though.
> no. the fact that virtualbox-ose-source does not comply with
> linux-modulex-extra-2.6 is a bug in virtualbox-ose-source, not in
No argument here.
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: email@example.com
Go SF 49ers! Go VfL Borussia! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!