[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#67722: marked as done (PCMCIA/network conflict (cf #66284))

Your message dated 11 Jan 2001 18:00:34 -0500
with message-id <oavgrllmnh.fsf@arroz.fake>
and subject line no response -- PCMCIA/network conflict (cf #66284)
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Jul 2000 17:54:57 +0000
>From tow@theor.ch.cam.ac.uk Tue Jul 25 12:54:57 2000
Return-path: <tow@theor.ch.cam.ac.uk>
Received: from puce.csi.cam.ac.uk [] (exim)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 2 (Debian))
	id 13H8uv-0003xe-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:54:57 -0500
Received: from bit.ch.cam.ac.uk ([] ident=mail)
	by puce.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 13H8us-0006yc-00
	for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:54:54 +0100
Received: from tow by bit.ch.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 13H8us-0002le-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:54:54 +0100
From: Toby White <tow@theor.ch.cam.ac.uk>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: PCMCIA/network conflict (cf #66284)
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.54
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.54
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:54:54 +0100
Message-Id: <E13H8us-0002le-00@bit.ch.cam.ac.uk>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: boot-floppies
Version: N/A; reported 2000-07-25
Severity: important

Using boot-floppies 2.2.16, the bug described in #66284 seemed
to occur. That is, PCMCIA configuration went quite happily,
but then setting up the network seemed to try to reinitialise
the PCMCIA system again, and failed.

Opening a separate shell, and performing the ifconfig and route 
by hand meant that the rest of the install went fine, so the
error appears to be solely in the network setup.

I've classified this bug as important on the grounds that

1) it makes network installation on a laptop impossible without
what might be considered "specialised knowledge", and it appears
to say that your PCMCIA card is incompatible.

2) I assume that a fix exists and merely hasn't been folded in
by mistake, since the bug was meant to be closed in this release.

Toby White

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux bit 2.2.16 #1 Fri Jun 9 01:06:31 BST 2000 i686

Received: (at 67722-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jan 2001 23:00:15 +0000
>From adam@onshore.com Thu Jan 11 17:00:14 2001
Return-path: <adam@onshore.com>
Received: from (arroz.fake) [] (postfix)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 14Gqha-0003y5-00; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:00:14 -0600
Received: from arroz.fake (localhost [])
	by arroz.fake (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B2493802
	for <67722-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:00:34 -0500 (EST)
Sender: apharris@burrito.onshore.com
To: 67722-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: no response -- PCMCIA/network conflict (cf #66284)
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: 11 Jan 2001 18:00:34 -0500
Message-ID: <oavgrllmnh.fsf@arroz.fake>
Lines: 15
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: 67722-done@bugs.debian.org

We asked for a response from the bug submitter, testing the new
versions of the boot-floppies, since we cannot reproduce this problem,
or the bug report is for an old and obsolete version of the

Therefore, we are closing this bug.  That does not mean we do not care
about the issue you reported, it simply means that we feel that this
issue has been fixed already.  Please feel free to file a new bug or
request we open your bug if you can still reproduce your problem on
new versions.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: