Re: random comments and requests for information
Ross Boylan wrote:
> First, could someone tell me what NMU stands for? I see it on bug reports
> and other debian places.
That is a non-maintainer upload of a package; a developer other than the
normal maintainer released it.
> I mean, remarks like "you are deeply confused" (that was directed at
> my comments about adding drivers to the install process) can be taken the
> wrong way! By the way, I'm sure I am deeply confused, but I reread the
> fine install manuals, and it didn't provide any additional clues about how
> to slip drivers in. The install manual says there's this one big file (or
> set of floppies) and to use it; there's no guidance about screwing around
> with it. Secondly, I was thinking of using the drivers before I got to
> that point--specifically, my drivers file was on an NTFS partition on my
> first run through the install.
It is possible to recompile the kernel that is on the boot disk. I belive
the instructions for doing so are on the README on that disk. It's not
particularly easy, since other modules elsewhere are compiled for the kernel
image that is normally on that disk any may break if you swap in a new kernel.
> Second, while the posting to "Lazarus Long" was very funny, please take it
> easy.
> Anyway, back to LL: In at least one case, it seems he hit a real bug, but
> filed it under the wrong package (I say this because I think I hit the same
> one; I hope I got the right package). So the error reports may not have
> been as off-the-wall as they appeared. Well, yes, he should provide
> additional info.
People file bugs on the wrong package all the time. It's no big deal, we
have procedures in place to deal with it. What we do not have procedures to
deal with is someone who irresponsibly posts bugs and either spam-traps all
replies to them, or ignores all replies to them. Couple this with someone
who cannot remember he has filed a bug, and continues to file identical bug
reports day after day for a week, and frustration starts to enter the
picture. I think I've found an excellent way to vent that frustration
without becoming too upset at Mr. Long.
> Third, is there a standard way to capture errors? During most of the
> install things just sail by. And then afterwards, when I run (for example)
> dpkg and get lots of complaints (something about perl), I'd like something
> better to put in a bug report (that is, better than "something about
> perl"). I thought (hoped?) that errors go to some standard place (at least
> on a per-package basis), but I don't know if that's true.
Try running script before you run apt.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: