Lobby this, somebody
We have a public relations problem here:
Jose Manuel Cerqueira Esteves <email@example.com>
details his experiences in making a laptop work with Debian and tells
about a service request he sent for OSS:
> I downloaded the evaluation version of OSS for the kernel 2.0.33, in order
> to try it on a Toshiba 220CS, but `oss-install' failed, giving the output
> reproduced below (I also append the resulting contents of soundon.log).
> Since I compiled the 2.0.33 kernel with the proper options for use with
> OSS, I tried to find the cause for this problem. The problem (or one of
> them) seems to be in the check_shields.sh script. This reads
> /usr/include/linux/autoconf.h expecting to find there information about
> the kernel actually installed. However, the files in /usr/include/linux/
> are provided by a libc5 package (libc5-dev). This is the policy followed
> at least by the Debian distribution (apparently with very good reasons).
> Under Debian, in order to use information strongly dependent on the actual
> kernel installed, one should therefore analyze files under
> /usr/src/linux/include/linux. Adding support for this to OSS would
> therefore be important at least for Debian users. (Obviously, from the
> point of view of package management, it would also be most interesting to
> have the possibility to obtain the commercial OSS available as a Debian
which has spurred the following action:
in OSS Linux page http://www.4front-tech.com/linux-x86.html
there is the following note:
> Debian Linux installation Notes:
> The way how Debian handles kernel includes is seriously broken.
> The only way to get OSS working is to make /usr/include/linux
> and /usr/include/asm to be symbolic links to /usr/src/linux.
please Bruce or somebody convince 4front-tech that Debian is not
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .