Re: isdnutils and 2.0.36 (was: Linux 2.0.36 in slink?)
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Mon 14 Dec 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > >No. Only one reason but a good one: 2.0.36 (the so-called "bug fix only")
> > >changed in an important way the behaviour of ISDN devices. The new one works
> > >only with the debian isdnutils package 3.0 which is in potato... and will not
> > >go into slink now.
> >
> > Perhaps someone can do a minimal backport of the new functionality
> > of "isdnctrl" to the slink version of isdnutils ?
>
> There are a couple of things that need to be changed besides isdnctrl.
> isdnlog, for instance, as the format of the D-channel messages as reported
> via /dev/isdnctrl0 has changed. I think iprofd also needs to be changed,
> as I've had a report of runaway kernel messages from HiSax about some
> length mismatch which I believe is triggered by that.
>
> If 2.0.36 goes in (which I would like to see personally, as that supports
> *MUCH* more ISDN hardware, has bugs removed, is certified, etc.), I think
> I'd prefer to see the potato version of isdnutils put into slink.
> That's been tested more by now than a patched slink-update version would
> be...
It is unwise to change the kernel just before we ship. I support
making it optional for the minority of people who use ISDN adaptors.
It would be tragic if we upgraded the kernel and broke packages.
Reply to: